Shri Shri Uttaradhi Mutt vs Sri Nanjanagudu Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on 26 November, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Shri Uttaradhi Mutt vs Sri Nanjanagudu Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on 26 November, 2008

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

in THE HIGH comer or KARNATAKA c:Rcx3:*:§.'i;1§ ré£:§i' 

AT DPIARWAD 

Dated this the 2691 day of _VE$Ig)§f_ez11br:i;,"'f>.;€i'?V?f3;€3    

BEF'OR§§.__ % . é %
ms I-ION'BLE.'. MK 'J;;Vs*:*z€:1.'«{1§r.   :3
Wm; Petition No. 25215' 3:395 "
Bctwceuz    '  A V

Shri. Shri. Uttaradhi M'£1ttH_ _  , ' '

Repzesenized by its'VP¢etadhipathi _  

Sri Sathyatrna 'I'h;&?:=??;t1ari2. 2:   _ 

By its power _r2f'ai;1:oii_n_<:'y h¢}.u:_jL1é;:   V .

Sri R S KemE~havi"__ * '  '

S/0 Sri Sethu iV1ad1§és§Iaci:a1"--..

Aged abuut 64"    _ _'

Uttax~adh;: Mutt .c¢:::pgu;1d"   '-

Bangalore --"5,6{;'r (J04?  "  ...Petitio11::=r

V. ._i ' {I531 Sri  Rae Kolar, Senim: Counsel for
- M/.3 J:3.yavitta1"'Rac> Koiar 8:. Associates, Advocaics)

 éaghavendm Swamy Mutt
Mantfalayam-. '

_  ' Represented by its Pcetadhipatlmi
' " " u  -- .Sﬁ nsushanxincira Theerthaxu

By l;1is"Powcr of Attoméy Holder

 SiiB=A.1?z1til _
= '--«Agc:iji about '75 years
 R_¢$iding at Sri Raghavezndza Nilaya
 "gNo.53 (aid), New No.71
  «~I~2'3.bin€ira.nat11 Tagore Rvad 
14/'

19111 Main



-22..

Hanumanfhanagar
Bangalore --~ 560 919  Respomienﬁs

(By 8271 K Chandranath Artiga, Advecate)  

T1319 Writ Petition is filed under Articics    
the Constitution of India, praying to quash v§aie'A1j1n¢:'-:;1ut:~L __1:h'& , 

order on £13. No.25 in OS No.}.93/92j€1atéd .8-'1'1~3Q{ }5._on'the ﬁls T '
of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.I)n.), Bigppal A.     ; A

This Writ Petition com.ii1g__ on Vib;' 'orde::s 'tVl1i$. cié_aT§y, '£;hé;
Court made the following: '  . W    "

-.............................m.....................

The petitioxzer has    challenging the

crcier pﬁsse<f1   markcgi as Annexure-L, an
aypiicatién ﬁletti  8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151

of C120 for §fm§iuct§:>n."of«'kiocuments as per the list enclosed,

 V'  bittm. ai}'.Vc§i2é*é{i'Vby the ma} Cllourt.

    purpose of canveaience the parties are

refei;i'2=:d '§<:).a:*:i ;ﬂ:1cy are referrsd in the original suit.

 T  1' The plaintiff Sri. Sm. Uttaradhi Math fzied a suit for

 : d,ec:::e§¥ :23: injunction to resfzzain the defmdam Sri. 3:1.

   _.R3iEhavenémswmay Math, fmm entering uyon Sy.N0.23§ of

\a/



Anegunéi Viilage, (fiangavathi Taiuk anti net to i11ter'i_'E_::~c with
the pcribnnance of axmuai aradhana of Sri. P-aciiﬁjaﬁaigha

Theerthaxu, Sri. Kavecndra Theerthaxu and 

Theertharu. me said suit iffi1eci_;<1:1»_18.(}¢¥§'1'9§i§;.${ﬁdfi'f; zxgfais _ 

ztaumbczred as o.s.No.121/92 on Zane   fé21{§:2.s,.i':? a: %
Gangavathi. Suhsequent1y,V'T a1'7t§r   
District, it was transikned to  " it  '§;e.--:t1?i:mbemd as
0.8.193

/92. An ordefzjgiii' ;.vas granted against the det*e:;g1ants,AA,w1§1e.h t'$eé§1»~1'..g:g§§de absoiute after heazing both. :§pjsea~.1..vi1}3r-sfened against the said 0I:é;3,er;-- "'x=\:»'s.§«1:;;" modified iaermitting hot}: the piainléﬂ" axidﬁhag perform aradhana jointly. in the £§ivﬂ._§Révision I5t'tifibn ﬂied against the said Grder, the order of fhc _#.]gJ§}_vc::i3A£;1t;=; '€3_&:>11rt was set aside and the order of the Mu1:1s:iff :'"r;3;iu:v{c;fion against the detléniianis was restored. H0u%r:v€r--," Snprtme Cour': modiﬁed the 3316} order and «. h ."};'F.:If{I1itﬁii3'; Both the parties to pertbrm aradhana by turn. Aﬁm' 10 yeaxs, on 01.02.2002, l.A N0.17 was filed the plaintiff for amendment of the piaint, which was allowed. (311 16.11.2002, §.A.No.22 was filed ibr };arodu<:t;i0:::1 of documents which was allowed, as defendant had no ob_i:é€ﬁon.. Plaintiff ﬁled one mom appiicatzion on h/Lib; cozxdonation of delay and production of documents, which was also ailowgztﬁ as. £10 V objecﬁcgan. Issues had been ﬂamed recast on ()1.()2.20€}3. The 0f 1.Lif3:€. '"a11:t';>me3é V holder af the plaintéﬁ' was 1"3»_0 .- §Piai11tifi's witnesses were Cross {§Xajt11ii}¢§;i. ' aj::{>m:a:zissioz1er was app<)iJ1te:d+"to.;j]eg;f}1;£§i3f:f£}3_t:"é§Jid_é1;§Cé:*:*>f"i3eetadhipat;i and the said ev:dencé-._is'- :a1sr> "Q16 Court. On 25.08.2003 the:

piamuﬁ"c15§Lea!' n,is s:_ci e.,_ " .

.13.. 10.2003 the defendants ﬁled his aﬁidavit by in Chief, 021 32.10.2003, ;'.A.No.25 W33 V V _ ﬁlE:c¥~".";:%ee}i::if1g"'ieave of the Court to produce 480 documents. .'uI"'12cVTL__sai£i' .. application was opposeé by filing a detailed T. o'}§jec::i§:>r1s by the piaintiﬁ'. After hearing both the parties, by

-arciier dated 19.11.2003, the appﬁcation, I.A.No.2;"3 was A' V ajilowed. Aggxieveci by the same, the plaintiff puzfmed _ 3 _ W.P.N0.5'21OE3f ()3. Though the writ petition was e1:1:¢;rtainc€i, no imrzrim Offiﬁf was granted and the tria} Court w_'as:' to proceed with 1316 matter, rﬁlerefcarﬁ, 3}} which were pmduceﬁ by the defe_:1d.a;;t aiicéﬁg were marked as Ex.D--2 to f)--34{). '.

13.w-1 in part. On. :*7.03.:2<=:i)4.__V..w.i5;-N552 allowed. The trial Court was 1.1'-\.N0.25 with regard to rcievz-;at.1x{?:,r'A "..,;m/A::':A"3;:nff§.e1;1ts'.A H After such remand, by c}rd;:_r dated. Court held that the documenié :¥.x«fe£*§: namely E§x.IZ)3() to D280 *we*;e 11o{ '.'§i§;>:§ve, V' é'11§*§piCiOn, and accordixzgly cieclined to permit £9 i)2%0ii.1%'{:e:d, but it allowed the produciion. of ot1::.§;r'vci~0cu11i§§:11ts:,v_ fI"}:m p(':tif10}Z1£*3I'/ plaintiff herein did not iﬁicavsaid order, Thtis it accepted the production of E3-x.f_)3 to K3280. However, aggxieved by that p<$3":--tj0x;1 .o;iier rejecting Ex.D-30 to Ex.{)--28{), defendants ..p:+¢£m~'e(i W131: petition befom this sour: in W.P.N0.3381'2ff}-4.

" writ petition was aiiowed on 12.09.2005, semng aside order rejecting Ex.D~3G to lI:1x.D~28(} ané a direction was issued to the trial Court ta mcansider the matter in the light of \/% the order dated 1?.{}3.i2:0(}-4 in W.P.No'S'21()9[()3. Aga;;:;««..a£:¢r such remand, this trial Court has mconsidemd V- has held by the impugned order__tha_; 311' "£551: '_g:.r:;é';r_ﬁ;gn$ s. " "

produced by the ciefendarlt are rc;i:s:va:3;};tA. 'm:_éke:s'é.-:Viii*ji« fr}? deciding the conwoversy beiivéegn, tilt:

involveti in 11:16: suit. Aggrisved it the turn (sf the p1ain1:i1'f'te Ch3ﬂ€ﬁg&%:~'ih€ "

6. é 1ea:r:1c:d Counsel appcaxirxg §bx the imgaugmad order contentis vh.-as not gone into the genuineiicgé; oi" 'th_.rS:V as it was relevant before 'the miavaxxcjg of "c3' 1:' Vﬁocii-méfzts is consﬁered. Seccmdly, he . "cQﬁ.i;%§1déd that thé Véiiii is of the year 1992. in tlm pleadings, I ~..i."c:..._[, in mﬁittén statement, nowhezt the exisience of these dciC.§1mem':s whosa possession these documents Were, or

-.the xﬁasbn for inabiﬁty to produce these documents as " _rs:q1ii_:*eé unclcar law were mentioned and memfore, ymductien V' 0 § the said documents at the bslated stags: is impentnissibia in law» Lastiy, it was contended that Itzlyixlg on several judgments of the Apex Court as well as severai _ including thm Court, béfc.-rt: the documents AVa'.br;.?;1 " V. belated stage, the Court has l0<:ﬁ§:AA.

genuineuess and the cause ibxr he submits that the §.33:zpug:1c:::':i7::V):1.;ci*33;' pav;s;3-V_:':'f'ii and reﬁlllires to be interfered x 'E'. clear that the suit is filed on on 16.02.1995. It waé re--cast'a'¥i; into the Witness box 1 I. --- suit. Plaintiff also did not pmduce d0.c1imé:':;t{s which were in their possession _ eitherialoﬁg with"ti1:tvp1ai1:1t or hetbre framing of issues or within th§§'fi;t'$£.vc:iecarji:é'*r>_i' this case. They aim in the plaint did not stats v'vhér}.--__ihé '-:i'€_v:<:11:gn"é:11*£:s Were, or in his Whose possssssion it was V . and""':ihe"---- c§a11§.e for non production along with the piaint. .f.f'§1er§foIié;'. before: leading" evidence the plailfxtiff fﬂed 311 T._$af'p_f_)}ic'é:ﬁon on 16.11.2002, 10 years after the filing of the suit scéking leave of the Court to pmduce documents. Defexldant ' i1ad no Gbjeciion. Documents were aliowed to be produced. Again one man: application came to be filed seekiﬁg' Court to produce documents. Again the wéziab also allowézd to be pmduced because {)bf__§1€> ifhc ' defendants. It is t1w:eaft¢r_4P.W--«];A_'ivas €x:é::2Ti:11éd,':'; documents am marked and .VVV:..Pa¢tadﬁi;)a:_§ﬁ examinaci through Commissioner. EVifiéHI;¥§§§$': 1fecor;:v1V,"A V x

8. I The; Ivfilad afficiavit on 13.01.2003. is filed. it is thereafter D.W--1 is; '(:Z'GS;$V{ '.'i)'€'3':I<$t)'I't';';'£Zl2t': commencement of the cross all the documents on which defendant f}IiV"£JEaft"34Vi[A'(§vi31'%§"3*{i11C£3d before the Ccaurt. _V __of Civil Pxncedum is amended by Act 46 in 18 Rule 4, which reads as 1131dtff'fITZ . 'Récording of evidence ~ In every case, n j tfiev.€ticam1ynaﬁon~in-clzief sf a witness shafi be on "ajﬂidavit and copies thereof shelf? be supplied to file apposite party by the party who sails him ﬁn"

evidence:

Provided that where dcnmments czre.~_.,f}:£g;2{'fl'__' and the parties ref}; upon the dacumenﬁ, H proof and aeimissiiailizy of suc};AA»¢£»9c:1m.e}i£5'« , V are ﬁled aiong with A the Grder:-3 Of fhe Court." V A. . " n 3 Therefore, in View of $1316 V-11'1).If0\V{i"aiOI1, along with the affidavit, by wa.y._}5'r ¢xg:m;r;.§_ii;5:;;i::n»c:1ie§; the party has a right to product: ail reiies upon and far ﬁling sue}; Qiéw the reason for late production ::'z_);§ genuineness. Those ifgavgitgz i:rj§::"i;>_g)}:eci Vzigxto by the: Court at the time of aciB3.i£iLi:{;g'tf1e' evidence. In the: instam: case, tI1<)t1gA3".*,t1:1e along with I.A.N0.25 are ﬁled on apd ;:1'<V:5': "6:'iV18.1(}.£2{){)3 when the exami11ati0n~iI1-- chiief"hy9"%sgi35,r'"'.3f "c:..v:i:5£ence was filed, as no cross ﬁxamination MpIa<_:::' ' ~ crass Etxamination commenced only on ._V1'?.G1.2~f)vf)%';..1, the piaintiifwas net put to any disadvantage. The V' : i=r¥;1c$1:é"~.o33ject of the iaw insisting graduation of ﬁcxtruments is folds; (1) the opposite party shoulé not be taken by "is 1'1H;t'prise and (2) there shouici be: a finality and speedy trial. Similarly, their Court 3136 should mi): shut out evidsace as it

-- 10 ~ would come in the Way ef the Court ﬁnding out the truth in the enquiry which is ﬁtxe ultimate object of administraticm of justice. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects, an when the defendant was cross examined, the 'on which he xelied cm, were before the C0111':

was no Iegai impediment for there was any etgecﬁon Court has to decide the "'g%ei1uineeese,'VV. ::=:;1'(V1V admissibiiity of these gibeumeiiie mung c:.~5:'1CIt1sion cf the trial anrﬁgat exf 'é&£Spes&'§;V as held by this Court and the Apex (f':0:u1V1...T"i}:J,f0rt<%Vi:1eite1y," without garroperly appreciating the eﬁ'eetu"0fA theee Vapieegiriments, the parﬁes have already _ rea<3}:~.iee1 tihis on the orders passed on I.A.N0.225. _ attack to the impugned. career is, thoxlgh t1.:e"tI*2 "al helé that these dncuments are relevant, it 'ehas noi:'«:_ gene into the quesﬁon of genuineness of the _ VA "dee1"xments which he might to have éone. Though the trial ' has held that they are all relevant, in the High Court it is " "ébnzendee that the said ﬁnding is ineeﬁect. £1: was also gm-

contended that whilé the matter was remanded, this Court directed the ma} Clourt to consider both thﬁsc aS}3ects # i*1:i the friai Court has daclined to co11sider__thtt gCI1i1iI?';€fI}t§_;Su':§.,_!'_Uf:._£i3*f: documents on 12113 grozmd that there is Therefom it was contended that be quashed. » _ 1 A' A. T. V

11. The ﬁmt time ""%:}:1e v.:V$:;d.¢3E*:*:._ W.P.No.f52109/O3, the 't13%e "app1i§cation for production ()fdOC11ﬂ1€I1tS'\}§?;5Ii¥";"3€ii; :asidfe. in its entirety and $116:

matttr ﬁwas' .ré1{iégr_1ded"A'--T. 3§':;:;c1<:' fer fre:$h cmasideration in accordarlcéfsxiitigz Sxe:{'i_;Iid time when the matter came up _ bﬁfﬂtjgﬁ. Co1i:"n_VV§:10u§;h this Court formuiated two points for c0:;S;iL1¢i;a§tiQ:ti;--._Q3:1e regaxdixzg relevancy and another regarding }'ge_1é;5.;iné:1éS$, a=£. 's<'E11e trial Court had not given reasons Why it is re1eiran§..__'tc} aﬁow the applicatien age} on that ground this Court : asiﬂ'e.-- ihat order, it helé that it is totally unnacessary for me &' to go into the second question, namely the ganuinﬁness '% the ciacumant. But it égirected the trial {mm is dispose of the LA. in terms of the ()}f'd€fT passezé in W.P,N9.521{}9/Q3. bio «.14..

1:116 judgmsnt, on merits. As othemsise it wouiﬁ amount to shutting out evidence, which is impsrmissibie in iawjv

14. in that View of the matter, as intcrfési is not in way affected by prﬂductigxi jof '('i€$C.1!1v}T'lC3:Af§3C¥.,'5;f$ ' and the order which is passes? is G'n€ b€i.ng dVisV€::f::tiona§;y a::1<i purely §r0ced11rai in nature, case " is "1':--::§t éiscided, no pa.1§ablt: injustice is :n21£it:..Qut,_A":10'C23fs¢ fmj intezféztéﬁce with the said order has 8.I'i,S€11. Undﬁr :1:;.e'e.e ci1f€f'L1i;nsta11céts, there is no mmit in this a»;:~;: g;e1~:itio;§;. g§¢.co:a&i.§g.iy; if: is dismissed.

35$ Iudgté

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court