IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE A.N.V\iE'N.!,JGG'?AL'A"V53OW'f5_A
WRIT PETITION NO.1V8343?2_O:'iAOE' '(G:§i'-five; ,
BETWEEN:
Sri Munianjinappa,
Aged about 70 years, _
S/o. late Millappa, ., '
Residing at Narayan_apt;u_Ara vii{ag_e,«.[j~.,_
Jala Hobli, Barjgaifme North 'T'aIu1'<;,,_
Bangaiore Ru'r'a'_E._Di-st;7ict;.._~.,__'*-._ »
f = " :PETITIONER
(By SrI«M';'B..E§'a;tacj:ii:n~d F0'? F
Sri, S.D.N'.'PrasVa'ci,&.Sri._M._N5Othesh, Advs.)
AND:
1. "_-';r'rrt.._.Nayrayanamtna,:
,_"A"e:;ecl about 60 .y.e.a:'s,
W/o"'.Ffiateayfianjundappa.
I "Aged a~bf;m5't 40 years,
"S/0,__v'|'ate~"Nanjundappa.
3., Sr} =Si'In1Vas @ Seena,
"Aged about 23 years,
E S5/o. late Nanjundappa.
. Sri Nagarina, V
Kum. Kalavathi @ Baby,
- Aged about 21 years,
We. iate Nanjundappa.
Ali are residing at
Narayanapura viliage,
Jala Hobii,
Bangaiore North Taluk.
. Smt. Bachamma,
Aged about 43 years,
E3/o. iate Nanjundappa.
Residing at Mavalipura,
Yelahanka Hobii,
Bangaiore North Ta!uk.. 5
Aged about 42 years, A
S/o. late V?i'shi§;anatf:ap€pa",
Jala Home, Bari--g~a'~io're.:_N_orth Tai:T.'i,;iutta';j'pi;-1} H
Aged about 6Offy..ea»rsV,'' ;
S/o. tare' Byra.ppa'.<
. Sri «Krishiriagopaf
Aigedi'about S';'E.y_e_ars,
, VS/o.5»~.'iate Byrappa,
"5.0th_ are..residing at
.. .._iBaish.E:tti'ha'i!iviilage,
i<asaba".'Ho'bii,
-D__odda~h_a,i.iapura Taiuk.
» . Srri'i:..,__Rathnarrirria,
.. 'Aged about 36 years,
* .._W./o. Ramakrishnappa,
Residing at Thippenahalii,
Tubugere Hobli,
Doddabaiiapura Taiuk.
plaintiff filed R.A.S1/06 in the Court of Civil Judge_.._(Sr.
Dn.), Bangalore Rurai District. In the appeai, app-eila,n«t:"+,A,
petitioner filed an LA. under 8.340 Cr.P.C. *
of CPC to hold an enquiry regarding.the_tarrlperinrgifi,otloéwer-._, 'Au
court records and make a writtenil:c'omplai'i:t:
jurisdictional police against tl"le:,,4"i3.erson's iilegal * C'
insertions in the evidence of P,vt1e3';',,vTo~~.the.saiti_application,
objections were filed The Court
below has het§j4=t;§"5.t' maintainable
and the tai<'e_V proceedings as
alleged,in-the'~a'pp'i<i:;;atio.n it to the notice of the
Court of PW-3. However, it
has held that thVe_a'p.pi'ic'§.tion filed before it is devoid of
melvitand hasuidi'-sm__issed the same. Said order has been
iquestioned 'i«n"th__is writ petition.
C' 2. _ Naragund, learned advocate appearing
'*._for the petitioner would contend that, the Court below has
"'iiV'com'njitted material error and illegaiity in dismissing the
appiication. Learned counsel submits that, if the
it»
an-
application was not maintainabie before the appeiiate
Court as observed by it in the impugned order, the
open to it was to have sent the records of the '
appiication to the Triai Court fo»r»r».appr'o.pri'ate"Cactiiongp
Instead of doing so, the finding
devoid of merit and its dismissaVi";~r.iVs wholly
3. Sri S.A. Kh.a:d;;;', Ie5a'rne'd'j4advvQcate« appearing for
the respondents, invited objections
filed to the writ”pgetiition_’ in support
of the Court below in the
impugifiie’d’VCo’rd:ie’r_. fix}:-EV it
4. C’ 4Hrea’rd.«Vt’he ;iea’:ri*.éd counsel for the parties. I
havegperused the ‘viiritiivpetiition papers.
–.IA:n’di_sputediy, the record aiieged to have been
“tarn’pieredAV”Ti’s.. tpheviideposition of PW-3 recorded by the Trial
‘V Court.” Ivfathere were to be any tarrapering, the same has to
CC}}.,b’e’estabiished before the Court whose record aiiegeciiy has
beeniitampered with. It is not the case of the petitioner
“that after the record of the Triai Court Yeas received by the
/”
.u
appellate Court, the tampering in the deposition of 9_\N–3
has been made in the appellate court or office.«j’o.f’j'<.tlhe'
appellate Court. If the alleged tampering
place during the pendency of the».rnattter'VV'4"b:éjfore.'_'_the._
appellate Court, the Court below has righ'tiy
the applicant should approac'rl'.–_,:t_'h~~:.=.=V_ Trial Courtlvfor:._;reivi.eff To = C'
the said extent the appellateV,,.C-ojuggrtis_justified, in; holding
that the applicant shoulldliahppioafcitvs Court before which
the alleged lliiowever, the
further order' is devoid
of merit uncalled for. If the
applica:t.i_on 4' -wasTj~%..ljutrQfiaintainable in View of the
observationshiimaVde,V'eithe.r it could have disposed of the
application,perriii»tti_ng,.'the appellant ~ plaintiff to make an
'approp–.r_iai:e«appglication before the Trial Court or ought to
.ha'vei'svenVt"."t.he::.'application to the Trial Court for necessary
action'. ""v.I,n"not doing so, it has committed an irrational act
and-._the"'impugned order to the said extent is illegal.
C In the result, the writ petition s%::1ds allowed.
4
The impugned order dismissing the applicationfiled
by the petitioner as devoid of merit stands quashed;’~fff.._l’~i~_
It is open to the petitioner – p|ain.t’iiif2toieffiiiei—–.:.’~
aPDlication in the Trial Court and seel<vor,der_s,Vm' 2'
The court below shall ,takeA1'cei'ti_ti'ed of"
deposition of PW~3 and Exs.P-2fi"a,nd "P20 a.n_'d 'place the 'V 2
same on record of the arid" "'(')l.'~.i.ginal'd'eposition of
PW-3 and Exs.P2 and ,A'jt;:he".__Tria| Court in
sealed cover to consider the
application plaintiff, within two
wee ks from iii '* 2 it 1
the application if so advised,
before, time, the appellate Court shall
. .°*taVl<"e– the'"i*.e'rtified copies of Exs.P2 and P20 and deposition
same on record of the suit and the
orig.i_\nais~ ~th'e–reof be sent immediately in sealed cover to
'E'r.'ia,l::Court. The Trial Court is directed to take up the
2.2'?-.,appljiE:ation for consideration on 22.9.10. Both parties shall
\
/'
NF