Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. R. Thimmarayappa vs Sri. J. Gopal on 11 April, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO. 124/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.R. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT OLD NO.360 (NEW NO.84)
5TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT
PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE
BANGALROE-560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY FOR SRI LEELADHAR H.P,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI J. GOPAL
S/O CHANNA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.1917, 18TH 'A' MAIN
5TH CROSS, J P NAGAR
5TH STAGE, BENGALURU-78.
2. SRI ADIKESHAVALU
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
PARTNER, SLV ASSOCIATES
RBI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 078.
3. SRI MOHAN @ MOHAN RAJU
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
PARTNER, SLV ASSOCIATES
RBI LAYOUT
2
BANGALORE-560 078.
4. SRI SRIDHAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/AT II CROSS, CORNER
HOUSE, MARENAHALLI
PALYA, NEAR BY JP NAGAR
POLICE STATION
JP NAGAR, I PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDERS DATED 3.11.2016 PASSED BY THE 39TH
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ON
IA.NO.15 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC UNDER
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri H.P.Leeladhar for petitioner. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. Issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not arise inasmuch as, order under challenge relates to an application filed under Section 151 CPC by respondent No.1 as Obstructor whereunder he sought leave of the Executing Court to produce certain documents. Said 3 application has been allowed by trial Court by impugned order dated 03.11.2016.
2. Perusal of the application filed by Obstructor
- I.A.No.15 - Annexure-F would disclose that he is seeking production of documents namely, original copy of General Power of Attorney dated 04.04.1978, original copy of sale deed dated 04.04.1978, original copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.12.1978 and original copy of sale deed dated 05.12.1978. Affidavit accompanying said application would disclose that Obstructor is claiming to be the absolute owner of schedule properties and as such, he contends that decree holder has no right to claim himself as the owner and as such, he has independently filed objections under Order 21 Rules, 97, 98 & 101.
3. As to the relevancy of these documents are concerned, it is an issue which will have to be determined after said documents come on record and at the initial stage, said documents cannot be prevented from being produced, more particularly, when they had 4 been produced by defendants in original suit and had not been marked. As such, said documents are tendered in evidence by Obstructor. There is no infirmity in the order passed by trial Court in allowing the application. However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to admissibility or relevancy of these documents and it is open for the petitioner to urge if there is any such ground available to him before Executing Court while documents are being tendered in evidence and marked.
Subject to said observations, writ petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp