Karnataka High Court
Shrikant S/O Basappa Kuri vs Ratnawa D/O Laxmappa Kuri on 22 November, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 104413 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104413 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANT S/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER
R/O NAREGAL -582119, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI C.S SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RATNAWA D/O LAXMAPPA KURI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
2. LAXMAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA KURI
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
3. BALAWA W/O LAXMAPPA KURI
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
4. SHANTAWA W/O NINGAPPA KURI
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
5. MUDAKAMMA W/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
-2-
WP No. 104413 of 2022
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
6. NINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
7. HANAMAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
8. NINGAMMA @ MEENAXI W/O MALLAPPA METI
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER
R/O NAREGAL -582119
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
9. YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NAREGAL-582119, TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV, FOR C/R1;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R9-DISPENSED WTIH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO;
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT GADAG IN R.A.NO.56/2010
DATED 08-08-2022 ON APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER IN
I.A.NO.V AND VI FILED U/O.41 RULE 27 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC
VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATIONS, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
WP No. 104413 of 2022
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
An application seeking for production of the certified copy of a decree and Xerox copy of the partition deed and certified copy of the RTC's and mutations have been rejected by the Appellate Court.
2. The reason put forth by the Appellate Court is that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellant was not necessary to remove any cloud of doubt. The Appellate Court has also observed that the appellant had failed to show as to whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing the admission of evidence and has ultimately stated that as far as the compromise decree, there was nothing produced to establish that the production of the formal decree by itself would be a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.
3. In my view, the Appellate Court, being the final fact finding Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to -4- WP No. 104413 of 2022 the petitioner to produce the documents which he thought was relevant and would assist him in establishing his case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator however submits that the suit is of the year 2003 and petitioner has been filing one application after another application with the sole intention of protracting the proceedings. He submitted that the petitioner did not choose to make any application when he had filed a 2nd appeal on the earlier occasion and deliberately, this application has been filed after remand.
5. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in R.F.A No.793/2007 between Babu Rajendra Vs Basalingappa and Ors decided on 21.04.2020 to contend there must be adequate grounds made out for exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule of 27 of Code of Civil Procedure.
6. In my view, the petitioner only wanted to produce certified copy of the compromise decree which -5- WP No. 104413 of 2022 had been engrossed on a stamp paper. It is not in dispute that the certified copy of the compromise petition on the basis of which the compromise had been drawn was already on record. Further, the production of RTC's and mutations would also be relevant for the parties for determining the issues in the suit between the parties.
7. Therefore, the application for production of additional documents was required to be allowed. The impugned order is set-aside and the application for production of additional documents is allowed.
8. It is however made clear that the mere allowing of this application would not entitle the petitioner to produce the documents which are inadmissible in evidence. The Appellate Court shall consider the question of admissibility of the documents at the stage of admitting the same in evidence.
-6-WP No. 104413 of 2022
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
sd JUDGE AM