Karnataka High Court
Sri Rocky Muthappa Rai vs Smt Anuradha Muthappa Rai on 27 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8161
WP No. 5252 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5252 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ROCKY MUTHAPPA RAI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SON OF LATE MUTHAPPA RAI N
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 7E/26-27
RAJMABHAN APARTMENT
8TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD
RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVNAGAR
BENGALURU 560 080.
2. SRI RICKY MUTHAPPA RAI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SON OF LATE MUTHAPPA RAI N
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 7E/26-27
RAJMABHAN APARTMENT
8TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD
RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVNAGAR
BENGALURU 560 080.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR A.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
VANDANA S
Location: High 1. SMT ANURADHA MUTHAPPA RAI
Court of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE MUTHAPPA RAI
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 14
1ST CROSS, SHANTIVAN LAYOUT
SHANKARANGAR POST
BENGALURU 560 082.
2. M R STUD FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 135/A
9TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION
SADASIVANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 080.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8161
WP No. 5252 of 2024
3. MRN DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT N O 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION
SADASIVANAGR, BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS
4. UNNATHI GRANITES AND EXPORTS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT N O 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION
SADASIVANAGR
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
5. MRS VENTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 215
XANANDU, BIDADI HOBLI
RAMAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
6. FOUR M PROPERTIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT N O 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION
SADASIVANAGR
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS
7. ALPHA DEVANAHALLI PROPERTEIS LLP
A LIMITED LIABLITY PARTNERSHIP
CREATED UNDER THE LLP ACT
REGISTERED UNDER LLP ACT
REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXENSION
SADASIVANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
8. ALPHA CONSOLODATED PROJECTS (INDIA) LLP
A LIMITED LIABLITY PARTNERSHIP
CREATED UNDER THE LLP ACT
REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXENSION
SADASIVANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8161
WP No. 5252 of 2024
9. MR VENTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT NO 348 ,12/2
GROUND FLOOR 4TH MAIN
16TH CROSS, SADASHIVANGAR
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
10. BIDADI REALITY VENTURES
A PARTNRSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO 135/A
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSON
SADASIVANGAR
BANGAORE 560 080
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
11. 4 R BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING IS OFFICE AT
NO 210/2 , II FLOOR, ABOVE RENALKUT
SHOWROOM, SADASHIVANGARA
BANGALORE 560 080.
REP BY ITS PARTNERS.
12. CANARA EDUACTAOIN SOCIETY
NO 10/1, GROUND FLOOR
LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX
PALACE ROADO
BANGALORE 560 052
REPRSENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
P ASHWINI PAI.
13. SMT PUSHPAJA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
WIFE OF JAGANANTHA SHETTY
DOOR O 603, SLR MANSION
I BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALOR 560 079.
14. SRI SANJAY C D
MAOR, SON OF C H DEVRAJ
NO 4, BENSON ROAD
BANGALORE 560 046.
15. NARAYANASWAMY G
AGED ABOUT 36 YEAS
NO 26/1, 1ST FLOOR
OPP TO METRO PILLAR 94-95
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8161
WP No. 5252 of 2024
KANAKANPURA ROAD
YELECHENAHALLI
BANGALORE- 560 078.
16. ASHWINI RAI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEASR
SAJA HOUSE, BULERIKATE POST
OPUTTUR TALUK
DASHINA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.S. HARISH.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1
NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-16 ARE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED: 20.02.2024)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-19)
DTD. 13.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A. 23 FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE 14
READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.3046/2020 AND TO ALLOW THE
SAID I.A. 23.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the petitioners - defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.3046/2020 on the file of VII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 13.02.2024, whereby the application I.A.23 filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for a direction to the 1st respondent - -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:8161 WP No. 5252 of 2024 plaintiff and the witness PW-2 to produce the documents shown in the application was rejected by the trial court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for 1st respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the aforesaid suit filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff for partition and separate possession and other reliefs, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2. After completion of evidence of the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC seeking summoning of four documents enumerated in the application. The said application having been opposed by the 1st respondent, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.23, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the documents were not relevant or necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy without appreciating that -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8161 WP No. 5252 of 2024 said question / issue would necessarily have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at the stage of considering an application for production of documents. However, the trial court was justified in refusing to direct the witness PW-2 to produce documents, since he is not party to the suit and as such, the question of invoking Order 11 Rule 14 CPC against PW-2 would not arise in the facts of the instant case.
5. Insofar as the directions sought to be issued against the 1st respondent - plaintiff to produce the documents is concerned, in the light of the specific submission made on instructions by the 1st respondent - plaintiff that she does not have the custody / possession of any of the documents enumerated in the application, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned order and consequently, disposing of I.A.23 by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to request the trial court to draw inference / adverse inference against the 1st respondent-plaintiff for non-production of the documents alleged to be in her possession. If such a request is made by the petitioners, the trial court shall hear both sides in this regard and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. All rival contentions including the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8161 WP No. 5252 of 2024 contention regarding the said documents directed to be produced are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of by modifying the impugned order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.