Karnataka High Court
Sri. Amit Roy vs Sri.Jyothendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji on 25 January, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.62962/2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. AMIT ROY
S/O. LATE ASHIT ROY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7, JAYAMAHAL ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 046. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. JYOTHENDRA SINHJI VIKRAMSINHJI,
S/O LATE VIKRAMSINHJI,
R/AT HUZAR BANGLA,
GONDAL TALUKA,
GUJARAT - 360 311. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: GOWRISHANKAR C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DTD:03.12.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.53 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 13 RULE 6 R/W
SEC.151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.1963
2
OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANAGLORE WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR TO ALLOW THE
ENDORSEMENT OF DOCUMENTS MARKED IN "O" SERIES
AS "NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE" AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though the writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides it is heard finally.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.1963/2002 which is pending on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. That suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking a decree of possession of the suit schedule property and for damages. The suit is of the year 2002. The controversy in the present writ 3 petition arises out of an order passed on IA No.53 dated 3.12.2016.
3. Before entering into that controversy it is necessary to refer to an earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.45317/2014, which writ petition was disposed of on 25.11.2014. At the stage of trial, objection was raised with regard to marking of certain documents by the defendant in the suit. The said documents were sought to be marked and in fact marked in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged marking of the said documents before this Court. By order dated 25.11.2014 passed in the aforementioned writ petition this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to make his submissions with regard to admissibility of the documents sought to be marked by the respondent herein. No doubt, this Court stated that the said submission could be made at the stage of final arguments and the trial Court could deal 4 with the same at the time of disposal of the suit. At this stage itself it is also relevant to note that in the order dated 25.11.2014 this Court stated that the marking of the Sale Deed dated 28.12.1949 would be only for identification purpose.
4. Subsequently, certain documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and they were marked as 'O' series. The apprehension of the petitioner herein was that those documents were admitted in evidence. Therefore, he filed an application under Order XIII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), requesting the Court to endorse that the documents identified as "O" series were "documents not admitted in evidence". By the impugned order dated 3.12.2016, the trial Court has dismissed that application. Being aggrieved, the defendant in the suit has preferred this writ petition. 5
5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.
6. The controversy in this case is in a very narrow compass and can be decided bearing in mind the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition. On a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition it is noted that those documents which were sought to be marked by the respondent-plaintiff and objected to by the petitioner herein were ordered to be marked only for the purpose of identification. The trial Court has complied with that direction and it has not given the controversial documents numbers in "P" series, but has segregated them and has given them numbers in "O" series. When this Court has already stated that those documents have to be marked only for the purpose of identification, it would necessarily imply that those documents are not 6 admitted in evidence by the trial Court. This becomes further clear from the fact that this Court in the aforesaid writ petition disposed of on 25.11.2014 has also directed that the submissions of the respective parties on the admissibility of those documents be made and detail directions have been given by this Court in that regard.
7. However, this Court has directed that those submissions be made along with the final arguments and the findings with regard to admissibility of documents be given along with the final judgment while disposing of the suit. However, on hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that it is necessary that the trial Court give a finding with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the documents marked in "O" series prior to the final disposal of the suit. Such a finding would be necessary and must be known to the respective parties before they make their 7 final arguments in the suit. Therefore, while reiterating the directions issued by this Court on 25.11.2014 it is held that marking of the documents in the "O" series is only for the purpose of identification. The trial Court has not yet admitted them in evidence, as there is a controversy with regard to admissibility of those documents. The learned counsel for the respective parties to make their submissions on that aspect of the matter.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent submits that, the suit is posted to 30.1.2017. The petitioner herein to commence his submissions on that day and the trial Court to give a finding on the admissibility of the documents in the first instance. Thereafter, the trial Court to hear the main arguments in the suit and to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 8
9. Subject to the aforesaid limited modification of the order dated 25.11.2014 and on reiteration of the other directions issued by this Court, the writ petition is disposed.
10. It is clarified that the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner herein would not require any interference, in view of the observations and directions issued by this Court.
11. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms.
12. Learned counsel for the respective parties jointly submit that apart from arguments to be made on the admissibility of the documents in the "O" series and the final arguments in the suit, there is nothing else which remains to be done in the suit.
9
13. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions jointly made by the learned counsel at the Bar, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously keeping in mind the earlier direction issued by this Court on 25.11.2014 with regard to expeditious disposal of the suit.
14. It is needless to observe that the parties to the suit shall co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE ap