Shrikant S/O Basappa Kuri vs Ratnawa D/O Laxmappa Kuri
2022 Latest Caselaw 13222 Kant

                            -1-




                                    WP No. 104413 of 2022


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
         WRIT PETITION NO. 104413 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:

SHRIKANT S/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER
R/O NAREGAL -582119, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI C.S SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    RATNAWA D/O LAXMAPPA KURI
      AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER
      R/O NAREGAL -582119
      TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

2.    LAXMAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA KURI
      AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
      R/O NAREGAL -582119
      TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

3.    BALAWA W/O LAXMAPPA KURI
      AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
      R/O NAREGAL -582119
      TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

4.    SHANTAWA W/O NINGAPPA KURI
      AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
      R/O NAREGAL -582119
      TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

5.    MUDAKAMMA W/O BASAPPA KURI
      AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
                              -2-




                                       WP No. 104413 of 2022


     R/O NAREGAL -582119
     TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

6.   NINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
     AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
     R/O NAREGAL -582119
     TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

7.   HANAMAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
     AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
     R/O NAREGAL -582119
     TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

8.   NINGAMMA @ MEENAXI W/O MALLAPPA METI
     AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
     R/O NAREGAL -582119
     TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.

9.   YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
     AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O NAREGAL-582119, TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV, FOR C/R1;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R9-DISPENSED WTIH)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO;

       A.   ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT GADAG IN R.A.NO.56/2010
DATED 08-08-2022 ON APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER IN
I.A.NO.V AND VI FILED U/O.41 RULE 27 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC
VIDE    ANNEXURE-F   AND     THEREBY     ALLOW   THE   SAID
APPLICATIONS, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                     -3-




                                                 WP No. 104413 of 2022


        THIS       PETITION   IS   COMING    ON     FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                   ORDER

An application seeking for production of the certified

copy of a decree and Xerox copy of the partition deed and

certified copy of the RTC's and mutations have been

rejected by the Appellate Court.

2. The reason put forth by the Appellate Court is

that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the

appellant was not necessary to remove any cloud of doubt.

The Appellate Court has also observed that the appellant

had failed to show as to whether the Trial Court was

justified in refusing the admission of evidence and has

ultimately stated that as far as the compromise decree,

there was nothing produced to establish that the

production of the formal decree by itself would be a

ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

3. In my view, the Appellate Court, being the final

fact finding Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to

WP No. 104413 of 2022

the petitioner to produce the documents which he thought

was relevant and would assist him in establishing his case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator

however submits that the suit is of the year 2003 and

petitioner has been filing one application after another

application with the sole intention of protracting the

proceedings. He submitted that the petitioner did not

choose to make any application when he had filed a 2nd

appeal on the earlier occasion and deliberately, this

application has been filed after remand.

5. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in R.F.A No.793/2007 between

Babu Rajendra Vs Basalingappa and Ors decided on

21.04.2020 to contend there must be adequate grounds

made out for exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule of 27

of Code of Civil Procedure.

6. In my view, the petitioner only wanted to

produce certified copy of the compromise decree which

WP No. 104413 of 2022

had been engrossed on a stamp paper. It is not in dispute

that the certified copy of the compromise petition on the

basis of which the compromise had been drawn was

already on record. Further, the production of RTC's and

mutations would also be relevant for the parties for

determining the issues in the suit between the parties.

7. Therefore, the application for production of

additional documents was required to be allowed. The

impugned order is set-aside and the application for

production of additional documents is allowed.

8. It is however made clear that the mere allowing

of this application would not entitle the petitioner to

produce the documents which are inadmissible in

evidence. The Appellate Court shall consider the question

of admissibility of the documents at the stage of admitting

the same in evidence.

WP No. 104413 of 2022

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

sd JUDGE AM