Karnataka High Court
Ms Ashwini vs Sri Kalajaiah on 5 January, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 1171 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MS ASHWINI
D/O DHARAMENDRA
AGED ABOUT 17 YERS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
WHO IS THE NATURAL GAURDIAN
SMT BHAGYAMMA
W/O DHARMENDRA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT SANKANAHALLY VILLGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
... PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by VIDYA G R (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. SRI KALAJAIAH
S/O LATE JAKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
SANKANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
-2-
WP No. 1171 of 2022
2. SMT. SAKAMMA
W/O KALAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SANKANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
3. SRI DHARMENDRA
S/O KALAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SANKANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
4. SMT SHANTHAMMA
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SANKANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
5. SMT. KAVERI
D/O JAKAIAH
W/O KALAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ICHANALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASPURA TQ 573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT
6. SRI ERAJAIAH
S/O JAKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
SANKANAHALLY VILLAGE
-3-
WP No. 1171 of 2022
KASABA HOBLI
HOLENARASIPUR TQ - 573 211
7. SMT. SANNALAMMA
D/O JAKAIAH
W/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DEVARA MUDDANAHALLY VILLAGE
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TQ - 573 211
8. SMT. SAKAMMA
D/O LATE JAKAIAH
W/O SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
DEVARAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK - 573 211
9. SMT. GAURAMMA
D/O LATE JAKAIAH
W/O RAMACHANDRA
AGED MAJOR
DODDABAGANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HASSAN TQ
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 187.
10. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE JAKAIAH
W/O SURESH
AGED MAJOR
VADDARAHALLY VILLAGE
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TQ - 573 211
-4-
WP No. 1171 of 2022
11. SMT RAJAMMA
D/O LATE JAKAIAH
W/O MANJUNATHA
AGED MAJOR
AJJURU VILLAGE
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI
ARAKALAGUDU TQ - 573 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SWARNITH SATYA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4;
V/O DATED 02/11/2022, NOTICE TO R3, R5, R6, R7 & R9
ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23RD DECEMBER 2021
ON I.A.NOS.15 TO 17, IN O.S.NO.52/2014 WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial court
has called in question the order dated 23.12.2021 whereby
I.A.Nos.XV to XVIII filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, under
Section 151 of CPC, and under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC
came to be dismissed.
WP No. 1171 of 2022
2. The applications I.A.- XV to XVIII have been filed to
recall and reopen the stage of the case for further examination
in chief of PW.1. Further, I.A.- XVII has been filed under
Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC, to condone the delay in furnishing
the documents.
3. As per I.A.-XV filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w
Section 151 of CPC, permission has been sought for to recall
PW.1 and lead further evidence. I.A.-XVI has been filed under
Section 151 of CPC, seeking to reopen the stage of the case
and I.A.-XVII has been filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC,
to condone the delay and permit the plaintiff to produce
additional documents. I.A.-XVIII has been filed seeking to
reopen the stage of the case.
4. It was the case of the plaintiff that she wanted to
produce the Voters List, Election ID Card, Ration Card and
Aadhar Card. The trial court has recorded that the reason for
not having produced the same at an earlier point of time was
that the plaintiff was under the impression that the said
documents if produced, will not be returned to her and the
WP No. 1171 of 2022
same would be required for day-to-day use. Accordingly, it was
averred that the said documents were not produced at an
earlier point of time.
5. The trial court has considered the contentions of both
sides and has proceeded to reject the applications by relying on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BAGAI
CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PROPRIETOR LALIT BAGAI v.
GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE reported in (2013)
14 SCC 1. The trial court has referred to the judgment of the
Apex Court and has observed that where the application was
filed for submission of documents which were in possession of
the party, filing of application for production of such documents
cannot be allowed.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The facts are not in dispute that the documents sought
to be produced are Voters List, Election ID Card, Ration Card
and Aadhar Card which are public documents. No doubt, there
has been some delay, but the explanation offered for such
WP No. 1171 of 2022
delay by the plaintiff is one that cannot be brushed aside.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court without
referring to the factual matrix in which such observations are
made.
8. It must be noted that the judgment of the Apex Court
has been passed in the context of the facts wherein the words
of the Apex Court "15..........It further shows that final
arguments were heard on a number of times and the judgment
was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case,
the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the
final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even
with the aid of Section 151 CPC."
9. The observations of the Apex Court were made where
the matter was reserved for judgment after the arguments
were heard on many occasions and the observation has been
made by the Apex Court in such context. However, the present
case is not the one which requires rejection of the request of
the plaintiff when the documents sought to be produced are
public documents and that the case was still at the stage of
WP No. 1171 of 2022
cross-examination of DW.1 and any lapse could be
compensated by imposition of appropriate cost.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
The applications I.A.- XV to XVIII are allowed and the stage of
the case has been recalled. The case is re-opened and the
documents are permitted to come on record pursuant to
allowing of the applications. It is ordered that cost of Rs.500/-
to be paid to the other side. Accordingly, the petition is
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NP
