Karnataka High Court
T. Ramachandra And Ors. vs N. Ranganatha Chettiar on 16 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT489, 2003(4)KARLJ467, (2003)IIILLJ976KANT, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 489, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2376 (2003) 4 KANT LJ 467, (2003) 4 KANT LJ 467
ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. This case is a glaring example of gross abuse of the judicial process by perpetuating fraud on the Court coupled with laxity and casualness with which some of the Trial Judges are conveniently falling prey to such unscrupulous and well-planned mischiefs designed to take benefit of delays and procedural wrangles in our adjudicatory system.
2. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner 1. They had originally filed revision petition in C.R.P. No. 2264 of 2002 on 27-5-2002 before this Court praying to set aside the order dated 9-5-2002 passed in O.S. No. 3091 of 2002 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and for directing restoration of their possession over the suit schedule property on the ground that the encumbrance certificate produced by the respondent along with the suit plaint which was the main foundation for seeking relief in the suit, was forged and concocted one. Anyhow, in view of the amendment made to Section 115 of the CPC by the Central Act 46 of 1999, which came into force with effect from 1-7-2002 and the judgment of this Court in the case of K.R. Subbaraju v. Vasavi Trading Company, Bangalore and Ors., 2002(4) Kar. L.J. 545 : ILR 2002 Kar. 3513 the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners having felt that the revision petition may not be maintainable sought permission to convert the revision petition into writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was duly granted. Accordingly, the revision petition was renumbered as W.P. No. 31865 of 2002.
3. The sole respondent-Sri N. Ranganatha Chettiar filed the above suit on 9-5-2002 seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, which is a residential building with some vacant space. In sum and substance, the case made out by the respondent is that he is the direct descendant and legal heir of Sri T.M. Govinda Chetty, who was the original owner of the property in question. According to him, he was all through in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. But, according to him, on 8-5-2002, the present petitioners along with their supporters and rowdy elements came and attempted to disturb his possession. Accordingly, he sought for restraint order against the petitioners. Along with the plaint, respondent/plaintiff filed application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC for grant of ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. The vacation Judge Sri K.B. Lenkennavar heard on the application the very next day i.e., 10-5-2002 and thereupon passed the following ex parte order.--
"2. I have heard the arguments Of learned Advocate for the plaintiff and perused the records and the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, it is just and necessary to issue an order of status quo against the defendants regarding the suit schedule property. Hence, issue an order, of status quo till next date of hearing and emergent notice of I.A. No. 2 and suit summons to the defendants, returnable by 7-6-2002".
4. The affidavit filed in support of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was by Sri N.K.E. Ramanathan, General Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent/plaintiff, wherein, he had stated that there was threat of dispossession from the suit schedule property and therefore hearing of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was most imminent and urgent. It is important to note here that though ex parte interim order was passed on 10-5-2002, but the same could not be communicated to the petitioners/defendants because the respondent/plaintiff did not pay the requisite process fee for the said purpose. Records of the suit show that the deficit process fee of Rs. 31/- was paid only on 7-6-2002 i.e., much after filing of the above referred revision petition before this Court.
5. The grievance raised by the petitioners before this Court was that though the second petitioner pursuant to family partition had become lawful owner of the property and was residing therein but on 18-5-2002, the GPA Holder of the respondent, on the strength of the interim order obtained by him from City Civil Court in O.S. No. 3091 of 2002, came along with 150 to 200 goonda elements early in the morning and forcibly took possession of the suit schedule property. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner went to the jurisdictional police station and filed a complaint but the police did not grant any acknowledgement and therefore the second petitioner met the Commissioner of Police and appraised him about the illegal acts committed by the respondent. Thereupon, on the direction of the Commissioner of Police, the officer-in-charge of the Ulsoor Police Station registered a complaint under Sections 143, 448 and 427 of the IPC in Crime No. 279 of 2002. According to the petitioners, they having no other alternative and efficacious remedy moved this Court for redressal of their grievance.
6. In the present case, Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.P. Eshwarappa, learned Senior Counsel, have appeared respectively for the petitioners and respondent. On 14-6-2002, when Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, prima facie demonstrated that the impugned ex parte interim order had been obtained from the Court below by producing a forged document and by taking false plea that the respondent was in possession of the property on the date of institution of the suit, this Court by its order dated 14-6-2002 directed the respondent to state through his personal affidavit as to since when he is in possession of the suit schedule property. He was also directed to produce the original encumbrance certificate, the Xerox copy whereof has been filed as an annexure to the plaint, Further, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate filed before the Court below, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to secure the records from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar with his personal affidavit stating as to whether the encumbrance certificate as produced before the Court below was in fact issued and was genuine.
7. On 17-6-2002, when the case was again taken up, the respondent despite the specific direction of this Court did not file his personal affidavit disclosing as to since when he was in possession of the suit schedule property. Instead, his Power of Attorney Holder namely, Sri N.K.E. Ramanathan filed affidavit stating that.--
"2. The plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property for the last about 60 years in his own right. As he was a resident of Parangipetti, Chidambaram Taluk, Tamil-nadu, he had entrusted to look after the said property to his servants who came and told on or around in 1968 that one Devaraj Suri of Killick Industries Limited had forcibly taken possession of the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff came down to Bangalore and asked the said Devaraj Suri to vacate the premises as the plaintiff was the rightful heir. However, they refused to vacate and continued in possession of the property in question till about November 2001. Immediately after the Killick Industries Limited vacated the premises in question by about November 2001, I as the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff took possession of the suit schedule property including buildings in the said premises and have been in continuous possession of the suit schedule property since November 2001 till today".
8. The Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, produced the original records and also filed his personal affidavit categorically stating that the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate produced along with the plaint before the Court below was a forged document. So far as the direction given by this Court to the respondent to produce the original of the encumbrance certificate is concerned, Sri M.P. Eshwarappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on seeking instructions, stated that the original encumbrance certificate has been lost and the same cannot be produced. The respondent, as per the prayer made on his behalf was permitted to file objections to the affidavit filed by the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar. Accordingly, on 21-6-2002, he filed objections to the affidavit. In the objections, he did not dispute the fact that the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate filed before the Court below was a tampered document. He merely stated that the certified copy of the encumbrance certificate was obtained on his behalf by one Zahir Ahmed and he had filed the Xerox copy of the said encumbrance certificate along with the plaint. He further took the plea that the original encumbrance certificate was lost and therefore the same could not be produced before this Court. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit he has stated that.--
"When I took possession of the premises bearing No. 3 (New No. 33), Ulsoor Road, Bangalore in November 2001 the same was vacant and nobody was residing in the said premises".
9. In order to ascertain the veracity of the statements made by the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent, this Court required the learned State Public Prosecutor to ascertain the stage of the investigation in Crime No, 279 of 2002 and the steps taken by the police in this regard. On 21-6-2002, Sri Mohan Shantanagoudar, learned State Public Prosecutor, after seeking instructions, stated that the police are vigorously investigating the complaint made by the petitioners and the same will be completed within a period of three weeks. Subsequently, he filed a copy of the charge-sheet in Crime No. 279 of 2002. In the said charge-sheet, N.K.E. Ramanathan, GPA holder of the respondent along with 7 other persons have been named as accused. The charge against the accused persons reads as under.--
"That on 17-5-2002, at about 1930 hrs. the accused persons mentioned in column (4) with common object criminally trespassed into the complainant's (CW-1) house situated at No. 3 (New No. 33), Ulsoor Road, Bangalore in the jurisdiction of Ulsoor Police Station Limits and illegally took possession of the said bungalow and damaged the plant and flowers worth about Rs. 3,000/- etc. Hence, the above charge".
10. Further, in order to ascertain the correctness of the stand taken by the respondent that he is the owner of the property in question as legal heir of late T.M. Govinda Chetty, the original owner, this Court directed Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Standing Counsel for Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to produce the records of the Corporation in respect of the suit schedule property. On perusal of the records, which were produced on 25-10-2002; it revealed that the property in question stands in the name of Sri T.R. Harish, the 2nd petitioner, pursuant to family partition among the petitioners. This fact has also been admitted by the respondent.
11. With the above background, the stand taken by the contesting parties, the materials brought on record and the original documents, it has to be found out whether the respondent is guilty of obtaining ex parte interim order from the Court below by playing fraud and entered the suit schedule property by forcibly dispossessing the petitioners in this fraudulent manner in violation of the status quo order. The further question will be if the respondent had entered into the suit schedule premises after passing of the interim order of status quo, whether it is incumbent upon the Court below to restore possession to the petitioners by following the due process of law.
12. For coming to appropriate conclusion, I need to record the relevant facts which have surfaced during hearing of the case and which cannot be disputed by the parties.
Re: Description of the property.--The property in question is a bungalow originally known as "Spring Field" bearing Municipal No. 3 (New No. 33) situate towards South side of Ulsoor Road, Bangalore Civil and Military Station. There appears to be some differences in the matter of measurements of area of the property between the petitioners and the respondent as set out in the plaint and the writ petition. That is not very material for the present purpose, since there is no dispute about the identity of the suit schedule property.
13. Re: Ownership of the property.--Originally, the property in question belonged to one Sri T.M. Govindaswamy Chetty, who had purchased the above said property in a Court auction on 15-8-1911 for valuable consideration of Es. 11,000/- in an execution of decree in the suit. O.S. No. 193 of 1902 and in Ex. No. 885 of 1910. The sale was confirmed on 13-11-1911 and accordingly a sale certificate issued. The sale certificate had been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore.
14. The said T.M. Govindaswamy Chetty sold the suit schedule property in question in favour of the late Mandi Mandalappa, resident of Thoppe Mudaliya Street, under registered sale deed dated 25-1-1912 (Annexure-A1) for valuable consideration and he was put in possession thereof.
15. After the death of Mandi Mandalappa, his son T.M. Thimmaiah succeeded to the property. He, during his lifetime, leased out the property in favour of Garrison Engineers. After the death of T.M. Thimmaiah, the property was succeeded by petitioner 1. He let out the property in favour of M/s. Killick Industries Limited under a registered lease deed dated 5-6-1968. In 1971, there was partition in the family of the petitioners under the registered partition deed. In the said partition the entire property was divided into six shares. A portion of the property which was in occupation of M/s. Kiliick Industries Limited fell to the share of the second petitioner, namely, Sri T.R. Harish. Copy of the partition deed has been filed along with the sketch of the property as Annexure-B.
16. It is a matter of record that the petitioners, while still joint, had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant M/s. Kiliick Industries Limited (subsequently the name of the company was changed to M/s. Kiliick Nixon Limited) in H.R.C. No. 10414 of 1991 on the ground of personal necessity. The Trial Court rejected the application. But, the High Court of Karnataka in H.R.R.P. No. 1590 of 1996 allowed the same by its judgment dated 13-10-2000 and directed the tenant to vacate the premises and put the petitioners in possession thereof.
17. Against the above order of this Court, the tenant M/s. Kiliick Nixon Limited approached the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1609 of 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition by its order dated 5-2-2001 by holding that.--
"We find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, we direct the petitioner to vacate the premises in question by on or before 31-10-2001 subject to usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks from today".
18. According to the petitioners, as directed by the Supreme Court by the above order, the tenant M/s. Killick Nixon Limited, handed over the possession to the petitioners on 31-10-2001 under the written communication (Document No. XIII-A). Petitioners have produced the khata certificate issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike showing that the property stands in the name of T.R. Harish, petitioner 2 at Annexure-C to the writ petition. Petitioners have also produced the tax paid receipt dated 20-5-2002 issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Annexure-D2); the LPG domestic gas connection receipt (Annexure-D3); the electricity connection receipt and the receipts issued by the KPTCL (Annexures-D4 and D5); the telephone bills issued by the Bangalore Telecom District (Annexures-D6 to D8) in respect of telephone No. 5327644 installed at No. 33, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore, in the name of Sri T.R. Harish, the second petitioner.
19. The respondent as already noticed above has admitted that the suit schedule property was purchased by T.M. Govindaswamy Chetty in the Court auction. But, surprisingly, he suppressed the material fact that the said T.M. Govindaswamy Chetty had sold the same to Mandi Mandalappa, grandfather of the second petitioner, under a registered sale deed. It is elementary that when once the property is sold by the original owner, then his heirs or successor in interest cannot claim any right, title and interest in such property. The respondent, who had obtained encumbrance certificate from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shi-vajinagar, had full knowledge about the fact because the encumbrance certificate issued to him, official copy whereof has been produced before us, clearly shows that the entire transaction with regard to the suit schedule property was duly mentioned therein which the respondent conveniently suppressed by creating tampered Xerox copy.
20. Re: Possession of the property.--Again it is a matter of record that as already noticed above the 2nd petitioner obtained possession of the property from the tenant M/s. Killick Nixon Limited as per the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1609 of 2001 on 31-10-2001. As per the order of the Supreme Court, M/s. Killick Nixon Limited, who was the tenant in the suit schedule property, was to deliver vacant possession of the property to the petitioners on or before 31-10-2001. Accordingly, the possession of the property appears to have been delivered on 31-10-2001 to the second petitioner.
21. The General Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent in his affidavit filed on 17-6-2002 has stated that after the tenant M/s. Killick Nixon Limited had vacated the premises in November 2001 he took possession of the suit schedule property. This prima facie seems to be incorrect. Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has repeatedly stated that this statement is palpably and ex facie false by referring to the telephone bills, electricity bills and other documents which according to her conclusively prove that the property was in possession of the petitioners till the respondent through Power of Attorney Holder forcibly entered upon the property and has tried to defend the same on the basis of order of status quo obtained from the vacation Judge on 10-5-2002. Moreover, the police on investigation has found that the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent namely, N.K.E. Ramanathan along with antisocial elements have forcibly entered the premises on 17-5-2002.
22. Re: Genuineness of the encumbrance certificate.--The respondent had based his claim of ownership on the basis of encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar on 17-4-2001. The original records produced by the Sub-Registrar shows that the encumbrance certificate which was for the period 1-4-1911 to 31-3-1912 contains the following entries.--
Sl.
no.
Property Details Date of Execution Nature of the transaction and valuef Executed by In favour of Volume Pages Document No. 1 No. 3 21-11-1911 A Courtsale certificate Rs.
11,000 Dist.
CourtCKM -Station Govinda-swamy Chetty 251 247/ 248 813 2 No. 3 21-11-1911 A Court sale certificate Rs.
11,000 Dist.
Court CUM Station Govinda-swamy Chetty 251 465/ 465 949 3 No. 3 22-1-1912 Sale Rs.
14,000 Govinda-swamy Chetty Mandi Manda-lappa 256 319/ 326 950
23. The Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate annexed to the plaint is clearly a tampered one as it contained the first two transactions only. The period for which the certificate was granted was also overwritten. In the original, the one year has been changed to 22 years. The period has been changed to 1-4-1911 to 31-3-1933. Whereas, in the original certificate it is 1-4-1911 to 31-3-1912. The Sub-Registrar in his affidavit has categorically stated that.--
"I further submit that I have compared the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate issued by this Hon'ble Court and the carbon copy maintained in my office and I found that they do not tally with each other. I further submit that in the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate one entry is not found i.e., in respect of the Registration No. 950, dated 22-1-1912 registered in Volume 256, pages 319 to 326. I also found some variations in mentioning the year. In fact, in the carbon copy maintained in my office the period is for one year from 1-4-1911 to 31-3-1912. Instead of 31-3-1912, it is shown as 31-3-1933".
24. I have personally verified the original records produced in the Court and invited the attention of Sri Eshwarappa, who on personal verification of the original records of the Sub-Registrar fairly conceded that he cannot dispute the fact that the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate produced along with the plaint was forged and tampered document and it is for this Court to draw appropriate inference and give directions in this regard. From the above unimpeachable documents, it has to be held that the respondent is guilty of filing the forged and tampered documents in O.S. No. 3091 of 2002 and obtained ex parte interim order in a fraudulent manner.
25. Re: Impugned Order.--As I have noticed above, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned interim order without even caring to verify whether the document produced by the respondent were genuine or not. The learned Trial Judge could have at least asked the respondent to produce the original of the Xerox copy of the encumbrance certificate before passing the impugned order. Even this little exercise could have completely exposed the fraudulent nature of the relief claimed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned the Courts not to act in mechanical and negligent manner while granting interim orders but still such lapses are very often witnessed as in the present case.
26. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (Private) Limited and Anr., it has been held that.--
"On this occasion, we must refer to the mechanical manner in which some of the Courts have been granting interim orders -injunctions and stay orders without realising the harm such mechanical orders cause to the other side and in some cases to public interest. It is no answer to say that "let us make the order and if the other side is aggrieved, let it come and apply for vacating it". With respect, this is not a correct attitude. Before making the order, the Court must be satisfied that it is a case which calls for such an order. This obligation cannot be jettisoned and the onus placed upon the respondents/defendants to apply for vacating it".
27. Re: Restoration of possession.--In Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun and Ors., the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.
28. The view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the above Sujit Pal's case has been noticed with approval by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority's case, supra, by holding that.--
"There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any proce dural or other technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The Court must ensure full justice between the parties before it".
29. On the law of restoration of properties, the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Anr. v. Balsam Hygiene Products Limited, has held that.--
"The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every Court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands. It will be exercised under inherent powers where the case did not strictly fall within the ambit of Section 144. Section 144 opens with the words "Where and insofar as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose...". The instant case may not strictly fall within the terms of Section 144; but the aggrieved party in such a case can appeal to the larger and general powers of restitution inherent in every Court",
30. From the law declared by the Apex Court, it is clear that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff had obtained interim order by playing fraud with the Court and had entered upon the suit schedule property after obtaining order of status quo, then it will be incumbent upon the Trial Court to ensure restoration of the property in favour of the petitioners even by securing police help at the earliest to prevent any perpetuation of injustice.
31. Re: Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.--In the present case, Sri M.P. Eshwarappa, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent having realised that the respondent had obtained the impugned interim order from the Court below by playing fraud, tried to wriggle out the situation by taking technical objection that even in the case of present nature, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. I am unable to agree with him. If the objection raised by Sri Eshwarappa is to be sustained then the very purpose of incorporating Article 227 in the Constitution will be completely frustrated and it will remain as nugatory provision.
32. The Supreme Court in the case of Miss Maneck Custodji Surjarji v. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza, it has been held that.--
"... the High Court does not ordinarily, in exercise of its discretion, entertain a special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution, where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the applicant. It is true that this principle is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of an applicant...".
33. Recently, in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Private) Limited, the Supreme Court while examining the scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has inter alia held that.--
"Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the Courts or Tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains unconnected".
34. In my considered opinion, the present case falls under the category of an extraordinary case requiring interference by this Court by directing the Court below to remedy the injustice by holding appropriate enquiry.
35. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as noticed above and the law of the land, it is directed that.--
(i) The original suit in O.S. No. 3091 of 2002 pending on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, will stand transferred to the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, who will hold an enquiry and ascertain the date on which the respondent had entered upon the suit schedule property.
(ii) The petitioners and respondent will appear before the Principal City Civil Judge on 14-5-2003 and file affidavited examination-in-chief on the above issue with copies of all the relevant documents on which they intend to rely. If they have any other witness in support of their case, they have to file affidavited examination-in-chief of such witnesses as well. They will serve copies of such affidavits on the other side on or before the date of filing of the same,
(iii) If either of the parties intend to cross-examine any of the witnesses including the contesting parties, the Court will permit them to do so on the following day. The enquiry will proceed on day-to-day basis.
(iv) If after concluding the enquiry, the Principal City Civil Judge finds that the respondent/plaintiff had entered into the suit schedule property as alleged by the petitioners/defendants, then he will direct for restoration of the property in favour of the petitioners by taking help of the Police Commissioner, who will be bound to co-operate with the Court.
(v) If the Court below finds that on the date of institution of the suit the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property then it will be a case of no cause of action for the plaintiff and the plaint may be liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC with costs all through which will include costs borne by the petitioner before this Court. Advocate's fee will be assessed according to the certificates of lawyers furnished in this regard which will include costs of journey of Senior Advocate Smt. Nalini Chidambaram from Chennai to Bangalore and her stay expenses.
(vi) The Principal City Civil Judge will consider advisability of initiating appropriate prosecution against the plaintiff/respondent as also his GPA holder for filing forged documents and making false statement, on conclusion of the enquiry, if the situation so warrants, in order to deter such nefarious activities in future.
36. For the aforesaid purpose, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send the original affidavits along with documents filed by the Sub-Registrar, copy of the charge-sheet filed by the State Public Prosecutor, records of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and lower Court records in a sealed cover to the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, after retaining one set of Xerox copies of the documents so sent. The Principal City Civil Judge will treat the affidavits and documents as part of evidence in the enquiry to be conducted by him. He will keep these documents in his personal custody till conclusion of the proceedings in the case.
37. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in part in terms of the directions set out above with costs. Lawyers fee to be assessed as per the directions given above.