H S Vasudev Vs Smt H S Prema

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19333 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H S VASUDEV S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

H.S. RAMANNA @ H.S. RAMANNA S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HYUADALU MYLANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT H S PREMA W/O SATHAYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT HIRANDAHALLI, VERGO NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 049.

¶16

SMT. VASANTHA W/O LATE K.M. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.43/13, 21, B CROSS ROAD, C-BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶19

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O VENUGOPAL, R/AT RAILWAYS GOLLAHALLI, RAILWAY GOLAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ALUR POST, ALUR, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE-562 123.

¶21

SMT. LEELA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, RAILWAY GOLAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

SMT. PUTTAMIAH (MANJULA) W/O SURYANARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SIDDHANNA HOSAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, MADAVARA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562123 BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI.H.S. NARAYANAPPA S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HYUADALU, MYLANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶26

SRI.H.S. RAMU ADVOCATE, S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT "SRI. KRISHNA DAMA", 1127, 11^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, NAGAPURA ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶27

SRI.H.S. UMESH S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HYUADALU, MYLANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. A. RAM MOHAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R6; R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2019 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED ON I.A.NO.23 INOP.S.150/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGAL AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners who are the defendant Nos.3 and 5 in a suit in O.S.No.150/2011 pending considering on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2019 by which an application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 5 under Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC in I.A.No.23 has been rejected.

¶37

Sri. S.A. Sudhindra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on an earlier occasion the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 5 had filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 for a direction for the plaintiffs to produce certain documents enlisted thereunder and the said application came to be allowed by order dated 30.11.2018 directing the plaintiff No.5 to produce documents stated thereunder. He submits that despite there being a specific order, plaintiff No.5 did not produce the documents, constraining the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 5 to file the present application under Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC seeking for dismissal of suit on that count.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶40

He further submits that the provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC are mandatory in nature, non compliance of the earlier order passed under Order 11 Rule 14 would eventually lead in dismissal of the suit for non prosecution.

¶41

Per contra, Sri. A. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for

¶42

the respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 submits that direction was issued only against plaintiff No.5 and not to other plaintiffs. He further submits that the documents sought for and enlisted in the application in I.A.No.23 are not connected or concerned in any manner whatsoever to the suit property. He further submits on instruction that the plaintiffs in fact have no claim of any nature whatsoever with regard to the properties subject matter of the documents enlisted under the said application. Hence, he submits petition lacks merits and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶43

Heard and perused the records.

¶44

Order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court

¶45

on application filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC was specifically against the plaintiff No.5 to produce the documents enlisted thereunder. The suit is

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶48

one for partition, principle applicable is all plaintiffs are defendants and all defendants are plaintiffs. Non production of documents specifically directed to plaintiff No.5 would not result in dismissal of entire suit against the plaintiffs, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶49

Further provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 of C.P.C cannot be read in strict sense for dismissal of the suit, inasmuch as passing of the order of dismissal thereunder is discretionary. In other words, suit is otherwise maintainable and proceeded with notwithstanding the production of document as directed. The suit cannot be dismissed for mere asking of the party for non compliance of the order.

¶50

Provisions of Order 11 Rule 21 are extracted

¶51

hereunder:

¶52

'' 21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.

¶53

(1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶56

application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶57

(2) Where an order is made under sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.''

¶58

In the instant case as noted above, the directions in

¶59

the first instance is only against the plaintiff No.5. Secondly, the documents sought for, are not pertaining to the cause of action contained in the suit. In response to the application, plaintiff No.5 has pleaded that he is not in possession of the documents being sought for by the defendants. The Trial Court has taken note of these aspects of the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that the suit cannot be dismissed on this count. The Trial Court however while rejecting the application has given an option to the petitioners to lead the secondary evidence with regard to the documents sought to be produced.

¶60

In the aforesaid factual background of the matter, this Court do not see any error or irregularities in the order passed, petition lacks merits and same is dismissed .

¶61

Consequently, pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration.

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:9489 WP No. 19333 of 2019

¶64

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on an earlier occasion in very same suit this Court had directed the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit within an outer limit of one year, which has been expired long ago in view of the pendency of the present petition. Hence seeks for a necessary direction for expeditious disposal of the matter.

¶65

Suit is of the year 2011, considering the long standing pendency the Trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible keeping in my mind the earlier order already passed in this regard.

¶66

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶67

RL

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

H S Vasudev v. Smt H S Prema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Vasudev v. Smt H S Prema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. S. Kamala Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Smt. K Indiramma Vs Smt. G Nagrathnamma

Rajanna Vs Gowramma

Sri. R Nagendrakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Avinash Chinchalkar Vs Smt Vijaya

Sri Vadiraja D Vs Smt Ramakka