Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ADLR in Sri N B Raghavendra Rao vs Sri S Ravi Kumar on 4 August, 2023Matching Fragments
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 NC: 2023:KHC:27390 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 NC: 2023:KHC:27390 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.