Smt Radhamma vs Sri N Nanjaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 2871 Kant

                                        W.P. NO.9328 of 2017
                               1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.9328 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RADHAMMA
   W/O LATE K.V. LAKSHMIPATHY RAO
   AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

2. SRI. L. MURALI PRASAD
   S/O LATE K.V. LAKSHMIPATHY RAO
   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

  BOTH ARE R/AT NO.270, 1ST MAIN
  PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. OM KUMAR. R, ADVOCATE-PH)

and:
SRI. N. NANJAIAH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, APPAIAHSWAMY LAYOUT DOWN
UTTARALLI, BANGALORE-560070
                                            ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H. VEDAVYASA BHAT, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.1.2017
PASSED ON I.A.8 IN O.S.2707/2010 BY LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE HOLDING C/C OF XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    W.P. NO.9328 of 2017
                                         2



                                 ORDER

1. The petitioner are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 21.01.2017 passed on I.A. No.8 in OS No.2707/2010 by LXVI Additional City Civil & Session Jude, Bangalore at Annexure-E;

ii. To pass such other Orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case including a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the pending Original Suit in O.S.No.2707/2010 as expeditiously as possible.

2. The Suit in O.S. No.2707/2010 had been filed seeking for

the following reliefs:

"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff in this suit respectfully prays this Hon'ble court to kindly pass judgment and decree declaring that the Defendants 1 and 2 are liable to discharge the loan amount that had been got sanctioned by the husband of the 1st Defendant namely K.V. Lakshmipathi Rao to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and for further judgment and decree directing the Defendants 1 and 2 who have succeeded to the properties of deceased K.V.Lakshmipathi Rao to pay the said loan amount obtain form Thyagaraja Co-op Bank vide Loan A/c No.SL.41/27 and the further amounts accrued by way of interest thereof amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- by now, or in the alternative by way of direction to the Defendants 1 and 2 to discharge the said load amount with interest accrued thereon by making the payment directly to the said Thyagaraja Co-op Bank and to kindly pass such other necessary orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and to award costs of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity".

W.P. NO.9328 of 2017

3. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under

Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure ('CPC' for short) seeking for summons to be

issued to the General Manager, Thyagaraja Cooperative

Bank Limited to produce documents regarding transfer of

money from the plaintiff's Bank account to defendant's

Bank account. As regards the aforesaid loan account, a

prayer has been sought for in the plaint. The said

application was objected to, but came to be allowed by

the impugned order.

4. Sri. OM Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that there is no loan transaction between the

petitioners and the respondents or between the first

petitioner's husband and the respondent. Furthermore,

the petitioners have not taken any loan from Thyagaraja

Cooperative Bank Limited as claimed in the plaint nor

have they stood as surety to any such loan. He further

submits that even according to the plaint, the transaction

is of the year 1994. Therefore, no document would be

available with the Bank for the purpose of production and

as such, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the W.P. NO.9328 of 2017

application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC and summon

the General Manager, Thyagaraja Cooperative Bank

Limited with a direction to produce the documents

regarding the transaction.

5. None appears for the respondents. This Court vide order

dated 7.02.2022 taking into consideration that none

appeared for the respondents had observed that if none

were to appear for the respondents on the next date i.e.

today, the matter would be taken up for hearing. Hence,

the matter is taken up for hearing.

6. The suit is one for recovery of money and/or in the

alternative a direction to the defendant to discharge the

loan account with Thyagaraja Cooperative Bank Limited.

There are various allegations made as regards the nature

of loan transaction and how loan was obtained for and on

behalf of Lakshmipathi Rao, who is indisputably the

husband of the first petitioner and father of the second

petitioner herein.

7. Whether there was in fact a loan transaction or not would

have to be determined after trial. The trial Court has W.P. NO.9328 of 2017

summoned the General Manager, Thyagaraja Cooperative

Bank Limited with whom, admittedly, there is a Bank

account and the relief sought for is for discharge of a loan

with the said Bank.

8. In view thereof, I do not find any infirmity in the order of

the trial Court. It is for the General Manager, Thyagaraja

Cooperative Bank Limited, on appearance to state

whether there is a loan transaction or a loan account and

if the documents are available or destroyed. The same

could not have precluded the trial Court from passing

orders impugned in these proceedings.

9. In view thereof, there being no merits in the present writ

petition, the writ petition stands dismissed with the

above observations.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln