Karnataka High Court
S V Manjunatha vs Nayanappa on 12 March, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2014
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Writ Petitions 45605 & 47367 / 2012 (GM CPC)
Between
1 S V Manjunatha, 41 yrs
S/o late Venkatappa @ C Venkatappa
R/a Shivanapura Village & Post
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk
By GPA Holder S V Venkataswamy
2 S V Venkataswamy, 43 yrs
S/o late Venkatappa @ C Venkatappa
R/a Shivanapura Village & Post
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk Petitioners
(By Sri J R Jagadish, Adv.)
And
Nayanappa S/o late Tayappa
65 yrs, R/a Shivanapura Village & Post
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk Respondent
(By Rajeshwara P N, Adv.)
Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to
quash the order dated 19.10.2012 - annexure A in OS 292/2004 by the II Addl.
Sr.Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural Court, Bangalore.
Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the
following:
2
ORDER
Against the order of rejection passed on IA 16 filed under S.30, 31 and 151, CPC for production of documents and summoning the witnesses, this writ petition is filed.
According to the plaintiffs/petitioners' counsel, the documents which are sought to be produced were tried to be procured through RTI and other sources but the same was not made available. During the pendency of the matter, to prove the change or otherwise of the numbers of the property of that of the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs sought for summoning the documents as mentioned, the same has been rejected. Hence, this petition.
Counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that already all records are available. Though there is already a number given, subsequently another khaneshumari number is given to the defendant's property as such, there is no question of summoning the witnesses and unnecessarily the plaintiffs are wasting the time of the court. In reply, petitioner's counsel submits that when numbers have been alloted so far as property belonging to the respondent simultaneously there should be change effected by the panchayat in respect of the property belonging to the petitioners as well. In that view of the mattert to make it clear/to 3 elicit the same from the Secretary of the Panchayat is very much necessary as to how changed number could be given to the property of the defendant and not to the plaintiffs. To clarify the issue, records are necessary.
In my opinion, the application filed by the petitioners ought to have been entertained by the trial court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. No impediment would be caused except for some time that would be consumed in the process. It is for the trial court to summon the document as well as the witnesses to cross examine and conclude the issue at the earliest. It may not be out of place to record that though petition was filed during 2012, two years is almost wasted in the process. The same could have been avoided had it been decided earlier.
Sd/-
Judge an