Karnataka High Court
Smt. Suguna vs N. Neelaya Achar on 7 December, 2018
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NOs.41273-74 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SUGUNA
D/O LATE SMT.PADDU POOJARTHI
AND LATE ACHANNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT GANDEBETTU HOUSE
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK - 574 110
UDUPI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AJAY PRABHU M., ADV. FOR
SRI.B.S.SACHIN ADV.)
AND:
1. N.NEELAYA ACHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NEERAJA, GANDEBETTU HOUSE
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK - 574 110
UDUPI DISTRICT
2. CHELUVAYYA ACHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NEERAJA, GANDEBETTU HOUSE
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK - 574 110.
UDUPI DISTRICT
3. SHANKAR POOJARY
D/O LATE SMT.PADDU POOJARTHI
AND LATE ACHANNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT GANDEBETTU HOUSE
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK -574 110.
2
UDUPI DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.A.ARIGA, ADV.)
---
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227... OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED
ON I.A.NO.11 AND 12 IN O.S.NO.58/2015 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KARKALA VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.11 AND
12 AS PRAYED FOR.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Sri.Ajay Prabhu M., for Mr.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.K.A.Ariga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, they are heard finally.
3. In these writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the 3 Trial Court, by which application seeking production of the document has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of possession and mandatory injunction. The petitioner on receipt of summons, entered appearance and filed written statement. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issued. At the stage of the further cross-examination of DW2, the petitioner filed the application seeking production of documents. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order inter alia on the ground that the application has been filed with view to protract the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that production of documents in question is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. It is further submitted that on account of over sight, the documents could not be filed 4 along with the list of documents and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memo, in which it has been stated that he has no objection to allowing the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner, which is taken on record.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Undoubtedly, there is a delay in filing the application seeking production of documents. However, it is well settled in law that Rules or Procedures are meant to facilitate justice and the parties ought to have an opportunity for a fair trial. The respondents have also no objection to the production of the documents by the petitioner in the civil suit.
7. In the result, the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 5 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only). Taking into account the fact that the civil suit was filed in the year 2015, the Trial Court shall make an endeavor to conclude the suit expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ss