Karnataka High Court
S V Manjunatha vs Nayanappa on 2 August, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
ON THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.20599/2012 (GM-CPC)
&
WRIT PETITION No.26102/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. S V MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA @
C VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE & POST
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
S V VENKATASWAMY
2. S V VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA @
C VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE & POST
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. J R JAGADISH, Adv.)
2
AND:
NAYANAPPA
S/O LATE TAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YERS
R/AT SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE & POST
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.H V RAMACHANDRA, Adv.)
-ABSENT-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE RURAL COURT, BANGALORE DISTRICT
VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 1.6.2012 IN O.S. 292 OF 2004
C/W O.S. 293 OF 2004 REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING SUMMONING
THE WITNESS AND DOCUMENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID INTERIM
APPLICATION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioners / plaintiffs filed two different suits in O.S.No.292/2004 and 293/2004 against the very defendant seeking for a declaration and consequential reliefs.
2. Both the suits were clubbed together. The second petitioner filed an application under Sections 30, 31 and 151 of CPC to produce certain documents and also to summons the authorities therein to lead evidence on the same. The Court below by the impugned order rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitions are filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.
4
5. The Trial Court while considering the application held that the documents sought to be produced are available with the concerned Village Panchayath and that the plaintiff can very well produce the certified copy of the same. Even otherwise, the same could be obtained by an application under Right to Information Act and found that, there is no need to summon those documents. Hence, the application was rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant / respondent defends the impugned order.
7. I have gone through the application and affidavit as well as the impugned order.
In the application, what has been sought for is just a mere production of the documents mentioned therein but also that the Secretary of the Grama 5 Panchayath should give evidence before the Court in respect of the aforesaid document. This part of the application has missed the attention of the Trial Court. The Trial Court merely considered the necessity to procure the documents or otherwise. Under these circumstances, the plea to summon the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to give his evidence was not considered by the Trial Court at all. Hence, it would be just and proper that the Trial Court applies its mind to the application in its entirety. The impugned order is with reference only to a part of the application and not to the prayer made therein.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is disposed off. The order dated 01.06.2012 in O.S.No.292/2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore is set aside. The Trial 6 Court is directed to re-consider the application afresh and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh*