Karnataka High Court
Sri N B Raghavendra Rao vs Sri S Ravi Kumar on 4 August, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27390
WP No. 14979 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 14979 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N. B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
S/O N. S. BHEEMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
DEED WRITER
R/O CHANNAGIRI TOWN
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213
2. N. B. SATYANARAYANA RAO
S/O N. S. BHEEMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213
Digitally signed 3. N. B. SUBRAMANYA RAO
by GURURAJ D
S/O N. S. BHEEMA RAO
Location: High
Court of AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Karnataka R/O CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
THE PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3
ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER SRI N. B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
THE PETITIONER NO. 1
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27390
WP No. 14979 of 2023
AND:
1. SRI S. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE K. S. SUBBANNA CHAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O CHANNAGIRI - 577 213
N. S. ANANTHA RAM
S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
DEAD BY LRS
2. SRI N. A. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE N. S. ANANTH RAM
NEAR SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY TEMPLE
(MATADA STREET)
CHANNAGIRI - 577 213
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
3. SMT. N. A. BHAVANI
D/O LATE N. S. ANANTH RAM
W/O PRASANNACHAR
NEAR KARIYAMMA TEMPLE
CHIKKANAHALLI BADAVANE
NITTVALLI, DAVANAGERE TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002
4. N. S. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO
R/AT KALLUSAGARA STREET
NEAR BUS STAND
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27390
WP No. 14979 of 2023
5. N. S. RAMESH
S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO
R/AT KALLUSAGARA STREET
NEAR BUS STAND
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
6. SMT. P. SARASWATHI @ NAGAMMA
W/O P. SREEPADA RAO PATEL
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/O VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
7. SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI @ SHANTHA D. DESAI
W/O D. N. DESAI
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O GUTTUR COLONY
HARIHARA TOWN, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
8. SMT. MANJULA @ MANJULA S. DESAI
W/O S. N. DESAI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AT ANNX-A DATED 3.7.2023 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI DISMISSING
IA.NO.30 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN
OS.NO.168/2010 AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:27390
WP No. 14979 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-defendants in OS.No.168/2010 are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 03.07.2023 passed on I.A-30 filed under Section 151 CPC on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri S.N.Sameer for the petitioners and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that defendants-petitioners filed application under Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction against the ADLR, Channagiri to produce documents pages from 1 to 398 which are in their custody. The said application was filed at the stage of cross- examination of DW.1. Learned counsel would submit that at an earlier point of time, petitioners were before this Court in Writ Petition No.46828/2019 challenging the rejection of petitioners request to summon the Tahsildar to depose on their behalf. The -5- NC: 2023:KHC:27390 WP No. 14979 of 2023 said Writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate order from the Trial Court.
4. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed application under Section 151 of CPC to seek a direction to ADLR, Channagiri to produce documents pages from 1 to 398. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the petitioners filed application under RTI, but the copies of the documents are not made available. As such, he was constrained to file application seeking direction to produce documents. Further he submits that those documents are necessary for proper adjudication of lis between the parties.
5. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of A and B schedule properties and for possession of B schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of evidence of defendants i.e. petitioners herein. Application i.e. I.A.30 is filed under Section 151 of CPC for a direction to the ADLR, Channagiri to produce documents pages from 1 to 398 which are in the custody of the said office. On perusal of the application, it is seen that description of the documents are not stated in the application and the affidavit and application would -6- NC: 2023:KHC:27390 WP No. 14979 of 2023 not disclose the relevancy or purpose for which those documents would be necessary.
6. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioners had earlier filed I.A-22 under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and in pursuant to the order on the said application, the ADLR and DDLR produced as many as 1697 pages at the instance of petitioners-defendants.
7. From the records, it is seen that petitioners- defendants are filing applications one after the other to protract the proceedings. The application would not describe the documents which ought to be produced by the ADLR and application and affidavit would not disclose the relevancy of the documents. If the description of the documents are not mentioned, the authorities would not be in a position to produce the documents. The Trial Court, in the course of impugned order, has also observed that the application is being filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings, without any sufficient cause and so also, reasoning the relevancy of those documents.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:27390 WP No. 14979 of 2023
8. There is no error in the said findings. Thus, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with impugned order.
For the reasons recorded above and accepting the reasons assigned by the trial Court, writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondents- plaintiffs before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK