. 1 ..
W.P.NO.3851/2008
III THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATMM AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-I18 THE 13" DAY OF' KARO}! 2008
BEFORE
mm Hcmsm mt. Jusflcn H. G. , [:: ' H
wan' PE'I'I'I'ION No.3851 OF #2003 % L
'I' K:
PRATAP
sxo GURUNATH BHATKANDE
AGE: 62 YEARS, occ: BUSiNESS '
R/O cps No.959 .
KALIAMBRAI _ ._ AA
BELGAUM ~ 590 001 T"~.VV;PE'?3.TIONER
(BY am v R DATAR. my)
1 SA¥\fI'OSI{ V' %» * -
S] 0 'CIMNDRAKAMT'H_1N--DALAGEKAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, c:;r.:c;_ BUSINESS
R/O cTS--.r_;ov.159_7 A ' '
RA:.aDEv csA;.Li~ * -
.B.gLGAUM - 5-90 902'.
V. LA ' v..,é}M*;51éA'1?1~iAMALA
Tw',t.o-?;i£Nz9.R*«BHATKANDE
. "-AGEV:-vmaqoizv.-V"
1 CCC; H0l;}$EHOLD WORK
1%:/0 V959, KALZ AMBRAI
BELGAUM »- 590 001
: f ' " =SHil§VI'SH
. _s}_0 ZUNZAR BHATKANDE
mm: MAJOR, occ: BUSINESS
; R/O 959, KALI AMBRAI
T BELGAUM - 590 002
MAYUR
S/O ZUNZAR BI-IATKANDE
W.P.fiO.3851/2008
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O 959, KALI AMBRAI
BELGAUN -- 590 001
5 GIRKSH
S/O ZUNZAR BHATKANDE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O 959,, KALI AMBRAI I
BELGAUM --- 590 001 _
THIS WRIT ?E'I'I'1'iONIS FILED--§JNDE'B? Aie.'r1cLEs 225. as
227 OF THE CONS'i'ITU'E'ION OF' Irwin' 'PRAYIN«"3_ '1-A0 .CALL FOR
RECORDS on THE FILE OF THE cEf:*1*1'1or§ C§)§£1NGA"'tir¢- PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS pair, cQ::11'<*.r_MA_B§;-- THE FOLLOWING:
"" H
This m-t%%W:;mm :a;§fae£cndant No.1 is directed
aga1n' st dated 18.02.2008
_VV(A1me;;}:iI*c--F) the mal Court ----~ the Court of
_C1v1' ' '1 Judge (J;r.Dn.), Belgaum, in the
By the impugned order, the
V :1V.1£iS;rcjected the applications - I.A.Nos.3 35 4
ttié petitioner] defendant No.1 in the aforesaid
srnt[L1;A.No.3 was filed under Order 11 Rule 14 r/W
Sééfion 151 of CPC 130 direct the plaintiff to produce
'certain documents referred to ther<~:.in. I.A.No.4 was
W
W.P.NC}.3851/2008
filed under Order 11 Rule 1 read with Section 151V--"of
CPC to grant leave to the petitioner] defendant ~ V.
deliver interrogatories to the plaintifi'.
2. I have heard the Ieamed cc;iiiisei« K
the petitioner and perused _1:1_1e
Annexure-F. It is relevant to'
I'easo111'ng of the trial t11e efoi?esaid
applications:
'12. ... gmm by
the J deed dated
4.5.2991
, mnstmction
permissibn approved by the
and city survey map
e documents and which are
fgfar certgfied copies from the
Therefore question of
of direction to the plaintz_’fl”does not
AA The documents sought at SI.No.3 3
A’ “n deed, same has been produced by
e :ne pza.:ntga° which is the cenified copy.
Therefore again issue of direction for
production of the said document does not
W
W.P.N().3851/2008
13. The defendcmtNo.1 sought the –
No.1697/A contending that 2 V’ ”
purchased out of joirit
not, whether it is the iogi
finn, whether was
the joint family and ‘olZeged”V”pur¢he;§e”‘_of the
property etc, defied the
and plairtafi’ for
interjrogatmg “” e ‘ fl, ofyttheppmmufios not
at tennmat’ ed
the by giving the
the ownership of the pzaxnzgar
re the property, whether it is
joi:1t” frérnily property or partnersldp. The
persons of suit property have got
I em, right to question about the title of the
not by the defendants who have
tenants in the suit property. Therefore
W
W.P.N().38:’5}[2008
considering thefacts and circumstances of
the ease I am of the opinion that lA.No.3
4 filed by the aefenczam No.1 are liable tqbe %
3. I have examined the :7–:.
principles laid down by the
seam mw RAI via,
2003 ac 3044) relatifigi _;fm-isdiction
under Articles of name
pertaining to” paeeed by Courts
subordixme
4. In :tV’l”:«r;§_.V.:;e:L§1g3’ieatic>I1s — I.A.Nos.3 & 4
were oViViiy.%%to proceeding. It cannot be
” order suffers from any error of
apparent on the face of the record
to ‘1«31:”1}:’ieI’fere;t1ce under the extraordinary
. of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of
‘ VC:’,><_f.:'3":.stit11i:iox1 of India.
W
W.P.NO.3851/2008
5. However, having reganti to the facts of the cas¢:,'”*1
direct the trial Court to dispose of thc… ‘ ”
expeditiousiy and in any event, within 10 % 3 1
the date of receipt / production of Qf T_
Petition dismissed.
KM/Ara I;