Karnataka High Court
Vardhaman S/O Gunadhar Muttin vs Shantinath S/O Gunadhar Muttin on 25 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.200649 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
VARDHAMAN
S/O GUNADHAR MUTTIN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O CHADCHAN
TALUK INDI, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHANTINATH
S/O GUNADHAR MUTTIN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O CHADCHAN
TALUK INDI,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586 109
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT, MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2017
PASSED ON I.A.NO.36 IN O.S.NO.306 OF 2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, INDI, THE CERTIFIED COPY
OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE 'E'.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit he filed an application in I.A.No.36 under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to produce certain documents. The same was allowed. Hence, this petition by the defendant No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order of the trial court is erroneous. The trial court committed an error in directing the defendant No.1 to 3 produce the documents. The same is disputed by the respondent.
3. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The documents sought to be produced are the N.A. order, layout map, extract of the properties, N.A. pertaining to certain lands, conversion orders, etc. They are all public documents within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case. He cannot direct the defendants to produce the documents. The trial court on the other hand went on to hold that it is difficult for the plaintiff to collect the number of plots which is being formed and therefore the documents are required. If the documents have produced it would make it easy to understand the number of plots in this regard. The reasons assigned by the trial court are unacceptable. These are not the reasons to consider an application of this nature. It is for the plaintiff alone to prove his case. Whether the court finds it simple to understand or whether it is easy for the 4 plaintiff or whether it is difficult for the plaintiff are not reasons to allow such an application. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed.
The order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi in O.S.No.306 of 2007 is set aside. I.A.No.36 filed by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL Ct:RRJ