IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY OF DECEMBER,g201Vo..'D_jj %
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.J\={I VE::Is}Uj;{3f)_P}'\LA.:
w.P.No.5534/D2010'(eiM»ecPc)T.Te"--T.Eff' "
W.P.NOS.6173--6174/_2010(GM-CF'C
BETWEEN:
Chandrashekaraiah .
Since dead by his vLRs.,"' *
1. Leeiavathi'---.. ~ jg .
W/0 late Ciiandra.she'ié'ara'ia.hT-
Aged abDDt"*5'Q.,years', " 3'
R/aTt"No*.83'i3, cross, _
Ken g eri -- Sa'teE!-it_e' 'Towri ' ., '
Ba n'gafo.re ~.560fO60.,__""
2. Madura "
Cg/O iate Ch'a.r_1drashekariah
-' v ._fAgerJ_abT0ut 27' 'y*ea'rs,
' «TR/at" [\1o_.4I6._9 K
'i*9A""'-!\{iEaE.,riT',TODD. Canara Bank
. '5Raja'ji.haga.'r_','~'I Block,
7 B'angalDre':TAT
Gérudarangalah
E Aged about 84 years.
Vide order dated 20.10.2010
Amended the cause title of the
Petétion that the respondent No.1 is
Died and the respondent No.2 to 12(c)
are the L.Rs of Respondent No.1
Chandramma
W/o Rajashekar I
Aged about -40 years.
Venkatesh
S/o late Rajashekar
Aged about 24 years.
Shamsundar
S/o late Rajashekar _ .
Aged about 21 Vyears’;” —
Chandra).-.’r’:..thiatA;jt’_,1 ~ 4 _
S/o Go\irind.a’iwah’ l-
Aged abo~s.lt”5f::’.:..,years’,y ”
R/alt”N’o;~5gSi7, “Cro’ss; _
III ‘Block, Koiianjalnga’lav~—._ r
Ban”g_a|o.re — .56«0″r’03«’l_,_t”‘*~
Anasuya. . –.
W/’o late ShIyas’han§<ar
_ '5 b._0Ut 4105' y.e.al*s.
-(D/o~l,a’t.e Shlvashankar
Aged abo__uf 24 years.
vamum”
D/o late Shlvashankar
‘Aged about 22 years.
:V “Glrish
F S/o late Shivashankar
Aged about 20 years.
10. Nanda
D/0 late Shivashankar
Aged about 18 years.
11.’.-Suresh
S/0 Garudarangaiah
Aged about 48 years.
12. Chennaswamy
Since dead by his LRs
12(a) Smt.Gayathri
W/o late ChennaiS’v.rl_am.’}. :«
Aged about 32 yea’rs~.- *
12(b)Kum.Rad_hik_a . .
D/0 late Ci*}e.:1na§;wan1y ‘
Aged.4abvo__ut_1;1. yea.rs.–.._ C
12(c):K’o’rfi;’Léi:ha l
D/0-. Eate CE’:fe..n ‘rias’w_amy ‘
A’g.ed«abo-u_t ‘2._ijV’yea–rs;’
Prop, Defen’da_nits.,:l;–2(b) “aha (c)
Being minors re;3.resen,’ted by
V’ _ the.i._r°’Na-tural Guard”ia’n, Mother
,i’.e_.,,’ prop, Defendant No.12(a).
ll” Ailare V’ d__i at N 0.8
San_jeeya.n”ayaika Lane
Avenu er. Road Cross
Bangaiore – 560 oo2.
RESPONDENTS
..u5These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
2227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
.,,_records and set aside the order dated 11.2.2010 on
I.A.No.8 to 10 in O.S.!\io.299-4/2001 on the file of the City
Civil Liudge, Bangalore vide Annexure — K.
These petitions coming on for preliminary’*–h’ear_ij’n~lg,__in
‘8’ group this day, the Court made the following:
QRDER,mm,
Chandrashekaraiah, the orlginai’.’_Aplaintlff_,’eAfifed,
for partition and separate p’oss’e.ssion.”claiming h~i,s”‘s’l’ia’re in”
the plaint schedule pro__perties,.a–ndev-fo’r.conseq’uen.ti:a| reliefs.
The respondents are said suit. The
plaintiff having» V’/diecig” ‘ll’-reipfelsentatives are
prosecuting fi statement, the
defendVa_n_ts One of the contentions
raisedifiin is that, the plaintiff has
relinquished’ his the joint family during the
yeaeer_;,e’1’9?.6. Iss-u_es having been framed, for the plaintiffs,
,PW_s” .1 .hla–ve deposed and on behalf of the defendants,
“‘1.1″5_dlefen’daraVt,’has deposed as DW–1. Certain documents
relaltiingetoll katha change in the name of
mcuhandrashekaraiah/deceased plaintiff was sought to be
a._coVn’fi’onted, the execution of which, DW-1 denied. Legal
if -relpresentatives of the plaintiff filed I.As No. 8 to 10 i.e.,
‘t
_,.»”‘
,5
for re-opening of the case, recalling of PW-1 and for
production of documents. Statement of objectiorisrwhere
filed to the applications by the 11″‘ defendant;;’~w’hVichQrfras.
adopted by other defendants. The triaiteerr.j:ri’.ndi’ngc,upJ’~
applications to be devoid of merit
Aggrieved, the legal representativ’e.s:”o.f the:.pE.ai’ritiff
filed these writ petitions.
2. Sri Y.R.VSad:asivag -learned counsel
appearing for the petitiionersr co’nte_n’d.e_d the trial court
has erred in dVisa1il’o’yvin4gi in”‘I’};As No.8 to 10 and
the imrp’u’gii1.-ecijgyordér; inthe fact’s”a4nd circumstances of the
case, is>_irfa_tion_ai ~and’iiil_:eig.ai._.
‘i’h’-e,__V’respondents, though served, have
” ”reVm’ai n uinrep resented.
A halve perused the writ petition papers.
.Vi.A No.8 was filed under Order 18 Ruie 17 read
kl”‘:g,v\iitiri-._Section 151 CPC to recall PW-1 and permit her to
deplose further with regard to the documents obtained
L.
/I
from the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. I.A No.9 vvas filed
under Section 151 CPC to re-open the case and per’nfi_its:.the
plaintiffs to lead further evidence with
documents obtained from the..»8a.n4galore’_Wi~ia4ha’rivagaraV
Palike. LA No.10 was filed under”«OrtiAer”:7
to permit the legal repre’slen’tativeAs’ of ‘p:l’a’i’n~ti’ff ton
produce the documents liste_d.Wat_ ‘Seriai.’n’um.ber 1 to 5
therein, which were”‘..V:A’0′.3t’r”)ir’§é?” the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike been stated in
the affidavit. the documents
were not in the
custody of thVel”leg.a:i’representatives of the plaintiff at the
time of the same were obtained
from.;theA.Bang’alore’ Mahanagara Palike on 18.12.2009 and
:the_i”‘documen’tsvare very much essential to prove the case.
_é.”V’31i?Vheé trial court has observed that, plaintiff has
“._l’TOt stated; the purpose for which the documents are helpful
A case and that, the documents being not in custody
i
/f’.
of the plaintiff at the relevant point of time is not a ground
for allowing delayed production.
7. The suit is one for partition and
possession contending that, plaint..schedui’e”pro..perties»_areitit
joint family properties, liable for
sharers. The documents s:}oug_ht to be. proVdu:ced,. more-l
particularly those at serial to 3,..,sAho,i}vn in LA
No.10, when examined–.in_,the ?!;i’gl’l4f”–vC)f::fll.g stand taken in
the written statement,….pvrimaV”fa’ci_e to be having
some relevance i5i:o’r._idec’isio-n in__thje. suit? The permission to
produce %evi’ci§pce’éi;§€fhou’l’dinot buelshvut at the threshold. The
trial ofvvthe suit to an end. Hence, the prayer
in I.As No.8. ,8: .9vf.ou’ght'”lVto have been allowed and the
of dowcurnents at serial number 1 to 3 shown in
i\l~o.’1»(:_):’loéurgihtgto have been permitted. In not doing so,
thereiis an’V’iira;tionai act on the part of trial court.
é3.,_.t’ The parties should not be prevented from
it rpi=o.duiCing the evidence, more particularly the documentary
_gves}idence, which may be helpful to the court for arriving at
l
//*”
_/r
a just decision in the matter after conclusion of the triai.
The deiay has been expiained, in as muchveasiythe
documents have been obtained from they§3an._g:aIiqre.
Mahanagara Palike on 18/12/2009, by which_yd_:a.te
been discharged.
In the said View of .thc-gmatterj the:’V:Wrjt….petE’tions-.t’
stand aliowed in part. Impugneo .order”sta:ndssquashed.
Case of the plaintiffs re_~opeun”e.d’.v.r’:”«_
The legal” __represéritati_ye.s–__ «the plaintiff are
permitted to jprgoéliiilie”d:oc_u’mentsfand»PW~1 is permitted to
deposfévllfuyrtniaer, die’p:ositio.’nV”being iimited merely for
markin:q.of«.the« th’ree_»ld’o_c{;m’ents listed in serial number 1
to 3_a_t I.Aa”i’~.’oV;10.’.’- A’iThe”:admissibility or otherwise of the
.,4._Sai5.:H03:-[.Jf§’i”.3.ntS kept open for consideration.
by filing I.As No.8 to 10 have
obst’ruct.ed’the final decision in the suit. The suit having
,:been filed in the year 2001 for the relief of partition,
-_’l’«-””
[4
Sub-Ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, is requiredd.-.to be
decided expeditiously.
PW-1 shall appear in the trial court “dé§te
of hearing and her evidence shalbbe.,conjoie,ted’,e.ith4e’r on it
the same day or on the adjourned
may deem fit. The trial o?l’._’t’h..e suit ,sna_llitlvl)e*:@:’o’mp:leted”‘V
within three months from the_..date”a_,_cooy”‘of_th,i.s order is
supplied and the suitvshsll..b’e,_’d’ecid”edaétl any event, within
a period of six months,fro’m:’tnVd’ays..,, a ‘
Ord :
Sd/’-
JUDGE