Sri Ramachandra Vs Sri H Varadaraju

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 (A) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.334/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA MARKED AS PER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:45007 WP No. 28553 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer to set aside the orders dated 10.10.2018 and 15.03.2019 passed on the applications filed on behalf of defendant no.1 under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC in O.S.No.334/2008 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara.

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Respondents though served in the matter, have remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶37

Suit in O.S.No.334/2008 is filed before the jurisdictional Court at Ramanagara, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. In the said suit, the contesting defendants had filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of defendants evidence, an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 with a prayer to permit him to produce as many as 70 additional documents. The said application was opposed

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45007 WP No. 28553 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The Trial Court vide its order dated 10.10.2018 had allowed the application filed on behalf of defendant no.1 under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. Subsequently, yet another application with similar prayer was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 to permit him to produce certain other additional documents, and even the said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2019 allowed the said application, and being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 10.10.2018 and 15.03.2018, plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Perusal of documents filed along with the application would go to show that as many as 70 documents are sought to be produced and most of the documents are irrelevant and they do not even relate to the suit schedule property. Though in the objections filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the above aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the Trial Court, the same has not been

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45007 WP No. 28553 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

appreciated by the Trial Court and in a mechanical manner both

¶45

the applications have been allowed, thereby permitting defendant no.1 to produce irrelevant documents which are not at all material to adjudicate the dispute involved in the suit.

¶46

Perusal of the applications filed under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC on behalf of defendant no.1 before the Trial Court would

¶47

go to show that in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced is not at all mentioned. Along with the first application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC, a list of documents which are sought to be produced is furnished. A perusal of the said list would go to show that defendant no.1 has sought permission of the Trial Court to produce as many as 70 additional documents. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, most of the documents found in the list are not at all relevant and they do not even relate to the suit schedule property in any manner. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the second application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A, defendant no.1 has failed to mention the relevancy of the documents which are sought to be produced. On the other

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:45007 WP No. 28553 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

hand, in the objections filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to the said applications, in addition to stating that there is no pleading relating to the documents or about the relevancy of the said documents, it is categorically stated that document nos.3 to 16, 23 to 25, 28, 35, 37 to 59 and 70, are in no way concerned to the case on hand. Inspite of such objection being raised, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same and in a mechanical manner, the applications are allowed vide the order impugned which is bereft of reasoning. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the orders impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶52

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.10.2018 and 15.03.2019 passed on the applications filed on behalf of defendant no.1 under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC in O.S.No.334/2008 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara, are set aside. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the said applications afresh on merits after hearing both the parties.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:45007 WP No. 28553 of 2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Since the suit is of the year 2008, the Trial Court shall make all endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶57

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

KK

Sri Ramachandra v. Sri H Varadaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramachandra v. Sri H Varadaraju

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

Sri R R Sathyamurthy Vs Sri N v Venkataraju

Smt. Jalajakshi Vs Sri. Devaraju R

Sri Srikanth Y Vs State by

Abu Rahaman @ Salam @ Addu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Varanandamma (Dead) Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri Chunchaiah Vs Smt Mahadevamma