Sri Venkataswamy Reddy vs Sri Thimmaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 605 Kant

                               1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                             BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                M.F.A.NO.3779 OF 2019(CPC)

BETWEEN

1.      SRI VENKATASWAMY REDDY
        SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1(A)    SMT JAYALAKSHMI N
        W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY
        AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

2.      SRI GURUMURTHY V
        S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY
        AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NIO.39/8-4, 7TH MAIN,
      APPAREDDY PALYA,INDIRANAGAR
      BANGALORE-560038
                                               ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND

1.       SRI THIMMAIAH
         SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
(a)     SRI YELLAPPA
        S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
        AGED MAJOR
(b)     SRI MUNIYAPPA
        S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
        AGED MAJOR
(c)     SRI LINGAPPA
        S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
        AGED MAJOR
                              2



(d)   SRI KAVERAPPA
      S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
      AGED MAJOR

(e)   SRI RAJAPPA
      S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
      AGED MAJOR
      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
      HULIMANGALA POST,JIGANI HOBLI,
      ANEKAL TALUK,BANGALORE DISTRICT
2.    SRI MUNIYAPPA
      S/O LATE LINGAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
3.    SRI YELLAPPA @ BANDIGA
      S/O MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4.    SMT SHASHIKALA
      D/O YELLAPPA @ BANDIGA
      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5.    SRI VINODKUMAR
      S/O YELLAPPA @ BANDIGA
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
6.    SRI NARAYANA
      S/O MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
7.    MISS ANITHA
      D/O NARAYANA
      AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
8.    MISS AMURTHA
      D/O NARAYANA
      AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
      HULIMANGALA POST,JIGANI HOBLI,
      ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT

9.    SRI VENKATESH
      S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO
      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
      HULIMANGALA POST,
                               3



      JIGANI HOBLI,
      ANEKAL TALUK
      BANGALORE DISTRICT
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.VIJAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-9
    V/O/DT: 17.02.2020 NOTICE TO R-1(A-E) & R-2 TO R-5 D/W
    SRI. S.G. ANNAD CHAKRAVARTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 RO R-8)
      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 09.01.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2
O.S.NO. 635/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
ANEKAL, DISMISSING I.A.NO. 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2
OF CPC AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned order

dated 09.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.635/2015 by the Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short 'trial Court') , whereby

the trial Court dismissed the applications I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed

by the appellants-legal representatives of the plaintiffs under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. I have heard learned counsel for both parties and

perused the material on record.

3. After arguing the matter for some time, learned

counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants intend to

produce several documents in support of their claim before the

trial Court for the purpose of the applications, IA.Nos.1 and 2

filed by them in the suit and it is necessary that an opportunity

in this regard is granted in this regard in favour of the

appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and

proper and the same does not warrant interference at the

hands of this Court in this appeal.

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that

the instant applications filed by the appellants have been

rejected solely on the ground that the appellants have not

produced originals of the documents relied upon by them as

can be seen from paragraph 14 of the impugned order.

6. In the light of the submission made by learned

counsel for the appellants that they intend to produce the

original documents before the trial Court in support of their

contentions on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, I deem it fit and proper to

remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration

in accordance with law, by setting aside the impugned order.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 09.01.2018 passed on

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.635/2015 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, is hereby set aside.

iii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for re-

consideration afresh and to pass order on I.A.Nos.2 and

3 filed by the appellants in accordance with law, within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

iv. All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellants as well as

respondents to produce such documents/additional

documents before the trial Court.

vi. The trial Court shall dispose off the applications afresh

without being influenced by the findings/observations in

the impugned order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bmc