Karnataka High Court
Papanna And Ors. vs H. Dodde Gowda And Ors. on 22 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1989KANT61, ILR1987KAR2898, AIR 1989 KARNATAKA 61, (1987) 21 REPORTS 128, ILR 1987 KANT 2898, (1987) 2 KANT LJ 223
JUDGMENT Swami, J.
1. On 10-7-1987 an order was p assed stating that no further orders were necessary. However, having regard to the submission made on both sides that this is an appeal in which further orders are required to be passed, we call the order dated 10-7-1987.
2.: There is a request made by the learned Civil Judge C.J.M., Mandya for sending the entire records of this appeal along with the records of O. S. No. 1/ 1979 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya, out of which the appeal in question arises"
3. R.A. No. 107/1979 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Mandya to whom some of the parties to this appeal are also said to be parties. The aforesaid records are requested to be sent on the ground that the same are required in the aforesaid R.A. No. 107/1979 pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya. It is also submitted by the appellants before us that the subject-matter of the appeal before us is somewhat connected with the subject-matter in the appeal in R.A. No. 107/1979 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and C.J.M. Mandya.
4. However what disturbs us is the request made by the learned Civil Judge to send all the records of this appeal (RFA 109/1983) along with the records of O. S. No. 1/ 1919.
5. No doubt O. XIIL R. 10(l) of the C.P. Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') read with Rr. 76 and, 77 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of Practice') give wide powers to the Court to send for records from other courts but this power, which is discretionary, is required to be exercised in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 76 of the Rules of Practice and sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of O. XIII of the Code. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant cannot without any, unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires or that the production of the original is necessary for the purpose of justice. Rule 76 of the Rules of Practice also specifically in mandatory terms provides "that unless it is made to appear to the court that the production of the original document is necessary, the party shall be required to obtain and file certified copies thereof and the, original shall not be sent for". Thus it is clear that the doubt must be satisfied with reference to a particular document or record that production of the original is necessary for the purpose of justice or the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense, obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof as 'he requires. The Court is not bound to send, for the records from the other court and it should not normally call for the other Court records unless' it is satisfied that the other court record is necessary. It should only call for such records as are necessary and specially mentioned by the applicant.
Thus there should be serious application of the mind of the court as to the documents and records which are required to be called for from other courts. In the instant case, as it is noticed from the subpoena issued by the learned Civil Judge, there is a request, for sending the entire records of R.F.A. No. 109/1983 on the file of this court and also the records in O. S. No. 1/1979 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya out of which the appeal in question arises. The records of O.S. No. 1/109 are bulky consisting of several documents. The records of R.F.A.No. 109/1983 consist of only the 'Memorandum of Appeal and the judgment and decree of the Court below and the, Interlocutory applications filed in the appeal. It is not possible to appreciate how and whey the records of R.F.A- No. 109/83are required. Even if the same are required certified copies can be obtained and produced. Further the request is not in terms, of any particular document or records. Before calling for the records or documents in the other court from .the pending proceedings, the Court calling for the records and documents must bear in mind that it hampers the further progress of the proceedings before the other Court. Therefore, it must be careful to find out whether such documents and records are absolutely necessary for deciding the, case before it. Then only it should call for those documents and records wherever the originals of the same are necessary, and in cases where the originals are not necessary, the same should not be called for, unless it is not possible for the applicant to obtain and produce the authenticated copies of the same. However, we are not sitting in judgment over the validity of the order of the learned Civil Judge as the request is made to this court for the records. As we have come across such requests made by one court 'or the other' without proper application of the mind in terms of R. 10 of O. XIII of the Code and R. 76 of the Rules of Practice, in order to avoid repetition of such requests in future one Court or the other without proper application of the mind, we have thought it necessary to indicate the true scope of R. 10.of O. XIII of the Code read with R. 76 of, the Rules of Practice. We also do not consider it necessary to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they will make an application requesting the learned Civil Judge to reconsider the matter and make a request for sending only such documents and records which have been produced in O. S. No. 1/ 1979 and are required in R.A. No. 107/1979 pending on his file if the originals of the same are required. This submission is placed on record. In view of this submission, no order need be passed at present on the request made by the learned Civil Judge, Mandya for sending the records as requested by him.
6. Order accordingly.