Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Sridhara vs Sri Gopal on 17 February, 2023
Bench: C.M. Poonacha
-1-
WP No. 54890 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 54890 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M K SRIDHARA
S/O LATE M.N.KRISHNA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.122, GODA KRISHNA,
20TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-78.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHASHI BHUSHAN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GOPAL
S/O MUNINAGAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI RESIDING AT VADDRAPALYA VILLAGE,
Location: High NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
Court of SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
Karnataka
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-61.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT ANEX-G DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED IN
-2-
WP No. 54890 of 2017
O.S.4259/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALROE AS THE ORDER IS
CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS HON'BEL
COUR MAY KIDNLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The Respondent is served and is unrepresented.
2. The petitioner who is plaintiff before the
trial court has challenged the order dated
21.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.4259/2012,
whereunder the application filed by the defendant
under Order VIII Rule 1(a) read with Section 151
of CPC has been allowed on payment of cost of
`500/- by the Trial Court.
3. The necessary facts are that the
petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.4259/2012 for
injunction in respect of an immovable property
WP No. 54890 of 2017
bearing No.37/42, Formerly House List No.42,
Khata No.37 and situated at Vaddarapalya village,
Uttarahalli Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk and measuring East to West
(44+48)/2 and North to South 30 feet and being a
vacant site and presently within the limits of
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Uttarahalli
Sub Division, Bengaluru, on the ground that he
was the absolute owner of the said property and
the defendant who is a total stranger is interfering
with his possession of the suit schedule property.
4. The defendant who is the respondent in
this writ petition entered appearance and
contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing written
statement.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that
at the stage of defendant's evidence, the
defendant has filed an application under Order VIII
Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for
WP No. 54890 of 2017
short) along with a list of documents. In the said
list, it is forthcoming that the documents sought to
be produced by the defendant are certified copy of
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.386/2005 and
certain other revenue records. It is forthcoming in
the affidavit accompanying the application that the
said suit is filed by the members of the family of
the defendant in respect of joint family property.
6. The plaintiff filed objections to the said
application inter-alia contending that there is no
reference in the written statement to the suit in
O.S.No.386/2005 and that the said document is
not relevant for determination of the question that
arises for consideration in the suit.
7. The trial court vide order dated
21.11.2017, allowed the application on cost of
Rs.500/- and permitted production of the
documents. Being aggrieved, the present writ
petition is filed.
WP No. 54890 of 2017
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that absolutely no reasons have been
afforded by the trial court while allowing the
application, although the petitioner has objected
for production of documents on the ground that
they are not relevant and the said aspect has not
been considered by the trial court.
9. I have considered the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the materials available on record.
10. The question that arise for consideration
is "Whether the order passed by the trial court is
liable to be interfered with?"
11. Ordinarily an order passed without
affording any reasons is ex-facie liable to be set-
aside. It is relevant to note that production of a
document does not dispense with the proof or
relevancy of the said document. In the persent
WP No. 54890 of 2017
case, although no reference is made by the
defendant in his written statement and the
document is now sought to be produced for the
first time in evidence, it is always open to the
plaintiff to cross examine the defendant regarding
the said documents.
12. In view of the aforementioned, and in
view of the fact that no demonstrable prejudice
will be caused to the plaintiff, if the said
documents are taken on record, no ground is made
out by the petitioner to grant the relief sought for
in the writ petition.
13. However, the interest of justice would be
served if defendant is directed to pay cost of
Rs.1,500/-. In view of the aforementioned, the
question framed for consideration is answered in
the affirmative and I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is partly allowed.
WP No. 54890 of 2017
ii. The order dated 21.11.2017
passed by the X Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in O.S.No.4259/2012 is
modified only to the extent that
the application is allowed subject
to cost of Rs.1,500/- payable by
the defendant to the plaintiff.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
