Karnataka High Court
Smt R Sujatha vs Smt K S Lakshmikanthamma on 23 February, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 21522 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 21522 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT R SUJATHA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT 6TH 'A' MAIN,
NEAR HARISHANKAR MATA
MANORAYANAPALYA,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VIJAYA P
1. SMT K S LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA
Location: High
Court of W/O LAKSHMIPATHI
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT MANORAYANAPALYA,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 16.09.2022 ORDER
-2-
WP No. 21522 of 2022
PASSED BY THE SMALL CAUSE COURT III AT BENGALURU IN
SC NO.124/2020 ANNX-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition and has
sought for setting aside of the impugned order dated
16.09.2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner
- defendant under Section 151 of CPC seeking to delete
Ex.P.16, has been dismissed by the Court of Small Causes.
2. The brief facts are that a suit for eviction has
been filed by the landlord - plaintiff against the defendant.
During the course of cross-examination of the defendant,
it is submitted that Xerox copy of rent agreement dated
14.02.2008 was shown to the defendant and she had
admitted the signature. The said Xerox copy of the rental
agreement was marked as Ex.P.16 subject to objections of
the defendant.
3. Learned counsel for defendant submits that the
said rent agreement is concocted agreement and a police
WP No. 21522 of 2022
complaint has been filed in that regard. It is further
submitted that when confronted with the document, the
defendant has admitted without fully realising the
implication of her statement and that marking was also
done in an improper manner as the full document was not
shown to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant has
filed the application as referred to above.
4. The trial Court by the impugned order has
rejected the application while observing that the defendant
has not produced any supportive document to show that
Ex.P.16 was a created document and has failed to show
that it is not binding on her. Accordingly, the trial Court
held that it would not be proper to delete Ex.P.16. Though
the trial Court has rejected the application, it must be
noted that the trial Court has observed as follows:
"The defendant is at liberty to canvass any
supportive argument after conclusion of the
trial."
WP No. 21522 of 2022
5. The trial Court has further observed that
Ex.P.16 was marked subject to objections of the
defendant. Though the application to delete Ex.P.16 has
been rejected, the said impugned order itself would
indicate (1) that the document was marked subject to
objections of the defendant and (2) that the defendant
was at liberty to canvass any supportive argument after
conclusion of the trial.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fair
Communication and Consultants and another vs.
Surendra Kerdile - (2020) 16 SCC 411 and submits
that the document even a photocopy can be marked, if
explanation regarding the absence of the original is made
out.
7. Needless to state that the Court will have to
pass orders as regards the objections raised for marking of
Ex.P.16 and the observations made in the impugned order
is also to be taken note of at the time of arguments.
WP No. 21522 of 2022
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
applications have been filed to recall defendant and to lead
further evidence and application is also filed seeking
production of documents. Needless to state that pending
applications have to be considered and orders to be
passed. The stage of the case may have to be re-opened
considering the observations made herein. The trial Court
to also dispose off the suit expeditiously.
9. The petition is disposed off subject to the
above observations.
I.A. 1/2022 filed for production of FIR and PCR
copies, is dismissed as calling for no further orders in light
of the disposal of the main matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
