H.S Srinivas Prasad vs Chairman, The Institution Of Engineers on 23 July, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H.S Srinivas Prasad vs Chairman, The Institution Of Engineers on 23 July, 2015

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2015

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

 WRIT PETITION NO. 23518/2015(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
H.S. SRINIVAS PRASAD, AGED 76
(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESIDING AT:
936, I NORTH MAIN
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU, 570004
PHONE:821-2331925
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.H.S.SRINIVAS PRASAD, PETITIONER
(PARTY IN PERSON))

AND:

  1. CHAIRMAN,THE INSTITUTION ENGINEERS,
     MYSORE LOCAL CENTRE, MYSURU

  2. HONORY SECRETARY, THE INSTITUTION OF
     ENGINEERS, MYSORE LOCAL CENTRE, MYSURU

       BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
       JLB ROAD ( ADJACENT TO MUDA),
       MYSURU-570005
       PHONE : 821-2421168

                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI. ADV FOR R1&R2)
                                2




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO DIRECT THE 5TH
ADDITIONAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 4.4.2015 AT ANN-A ON
I.A.13   IN  O.S.1566/2008    AND    ORDER   THE
DEFENDANTS (RESPONDENTS HEREIN) TO PROVIDE
COMPLETE     FACTUAL     ANSWERS    TO   ALL THE
INTERROGATORIES SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF
ALONG WITH I.A.13 IN O.S.1566/2008 AND ETC.

    THIS   WRIT  PETITION  COMING    ON  FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

Heard the petitioner, who is present is person and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Application had been filed under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by this petitioner in O.S.1566/2008 pending on the file 5th Addl. First Civil Judge, Mysuru. The said application has been dismissed after contest by the Trial Court vide order 3 dated 4.4.2015. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds.

3. On suggesting to the petitioner, who is present in person that his purpose would be served by requesting the Trial Court to direct the defendant to produce documents and thereafter to cross examine the defendant and their witnesses. He has fairly submitted that he would do so. Any answering interrogatories is not the solution in a case like this.

4. In this view of the matter, petition is disposed of directing the plaintiff to file necessary application requesting the trail court to direct the defendant to produce relevant books of accounts and also papers connected with the appointment of Librarian so as to enable the petitioner to cross examine the defendant and their witness, after inspecting those documents. In the event of plaintiff 4 filing such applications the learned judge to consider the same as the earliest keeping in mind the observation made by this Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court