Karnataka High Court
Mehboob Tourist Home vs N Prakash S/O N Appaiah Babu ... on 26 November, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH carrier or KARKATAKA c:Rc;Jxé§ 3§,Hba arr mmnwan 1' " 'A Dated this the 26*33 day of Novcmbe:r,» = _ u BEFORE '. " M 4 THE H(}1'l'3I...E. Mr...,rUs'm;E N. 1' Writ Petition No. Between: ' V. ' ' Iv Mehboob Touiist Home Main Road, Fort V " Bcllary - 583§.1€,"}._ _'-- _ 1 A Reprcsentegiby iés Paafijgxers :- 1) M. I\¢'fo;.?;1.:3:_:ir4;'*k:&1nr:t:1'' : 56"yx~:axS;_ A '-- '.33/o__M. 'Me;h§éob'__ % 2) MG Akh% . eel 30 yeaars- V __ 5 ' S1 0 M Mqhdg Ghousc. Petitioner (Bgéi-i I-Iaish Desai, Advocate) 3'? y"ear;3 ' S/0 NI - " Bahu Pliainaaceutical 85 General Stems 0pp;'1_wMS Hospital . -- 583 101 Respondent
This Writ Pcfiti-cm is flied under Articles 226 and 22'?' of the: Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 2 , 5/ 11/ 12008 on IA-3 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.If)n.) 8:. JMFC at Bellary is {).S. 310.473] 2%'? as per AnneXu.:re-E, and ailow IA-3.
This Writ Petitioza coming on for preliminary heaxingthis day', the Court made the following: H O R. D E R The piaintifi' has filed this Writ; Petition."e§s1ie:1§iiLg'_:§he_ K "
oréer passed by the ma: Court on I.A;'=.No; le£i'ivfiietfi 12 Rule 8 of the CPC.
2. The plaintifi" filetiim egg Vgéguj; fox? 'decree of mandatozjr """ foz9 Veez1sequential pennanent inju11ciior:{'.ag'ainst--'tVV12'e The defendant is contesting the matter. 'He spzefextred a counter claim claiming " as his property. In the said s.11it.Vt«he. filed an application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC.i."£5r«a to the defendant to produce his title deeds. A The éefeniéAaI:1 txdid not file any ebjeetioxxs. Still the Court fine application on the geund that the plainfifi has Cto 'esesijhlish his case by production of his documents. if the 'fifiefehadant wants to esfaiaiish his defence, he has to pwduee "his documents. Plaintifi has to prove his case and he cannot R/, eompei the defendant to produce the property. Accordingly, the said application is against the said order the present Writ"Petitjo;z:q;'1'efi._' . b
3. Learned counsel for subnlitsg. > documents of the defendant help the Court in adjudicating this- thevvnenties and, therefore, he contends filed by the defendant, the dismissing the application.
4. in the said contention.
5. The is2L ..é;eeI<ing a relief of mandatory _vinjunc1ig§;n. v'I'I:1e eiisv;n;§e_'Atsetween the parties is regarding title and about 3' of open space which new in possession 0f the pzaintie". Both the pa11ies"~a.re title to the wall as well as to the open _. W.h'e..ever wants declaration ffloill the Court it is for the decuments showing their titie deeds. 'Defen;'lant's title deed would not prove pIaintifi's claim nor {he pleu'nfifi's document would prove the fitle of the defendant' Plaintifi having come: to the Court has to documents which are in his posseeasion. He: V' deftmdant to produce his documc1;gts';" ~-In " u matter, the impugned order passed .' call for any iI1t€I'fCI'€I3.CC as it L' the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-7* Judge Cid] --