IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY OF OCTOBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VEN..U_GOPIi\'LA"
WRIT PETITION NO.31103;{20j1G~
BETWEEN:
Sri N.J.Nataraj __ _
S/o. Sri N.Jagannatham',~._41 years; _ I
R/a No.166/C, 4"' Main""P;Oa.d}L ;
7"' Cross, Chamarajpet, T I ' ' '
Bangatore -- 560-018.
PETITIONER
AND:
1. Sri N.J"a.garIrIaf!;1:_arh,«
S/o. Srifl Vevnkata'Ea'n,V "F; years.
2. 'y,€f$I'1*it;..N.3.S1mV_!=,;;'rV1'da V:Lakshmi,
V-.IW'/cf._;_SrIi A.N.Jag'a'uT'T'ratham, 66 years.
% - 'T BOt'h4:_asr'e'*!§/ay No.166/C,
._ "-'4?" man, 7f"Cross, Chamarajpet,
',_.Banga|O:j€T* 560 018.
Smt".":.D.J.VijayaEakshmi,
A .-_W/O." Sri D.R.3ejinath, 45 years,
D/o. Sri N.Jagannatham,
"RA/a No.14---O3~144, 1" Fioor,
Gosha Mahai,
Hyderabad - 500 012.
4. Smt. P.R.Lavanya Mannar,
W/0. Sri P.S.Raja Mannar,
E)/o. Sri N.3agannatham, 45 years,
R/a No.58, Narayana Piliai St.
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore ~ 560 001.
5. Smt. Rekha Harish,
W/o. Sri K.P.Harish, ..
D/o. Sri N.}agannatham, 34 years,
R/a No.32/2, 15' Floor, ' '
4"' Main road, 4"' Block,
Thyagarajanagar, _
Bangalore -- 560 028...__ _, V 'C 'C
.i , RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.Krishna_ E3hat,’,A.d:C\{;–.,foifV
This writ pet-ition3–.is€fiied “und’e’rvA.rticles 226 and 227
of the Const’i’tt1tion..of’In:d.i_a =p_ra.ying to quash the impugned
order dated1:2;;O8.2iZi1.Q*fpa_ssve’d by the City Civil Court,
Mayo H-a~il,,._AB’a_ngai;9r_e -in i.Q.S;2t3.7131/07 on the application
filed by theC”‘-‘;1’*j’.’. res.po–ndent under Order 8 Ruie 1A read
with Slecti’-on ~65′{.Z¥i’).,,4tio,. (mam: Section 66 of the Evidence
Act, vide Arinexore
_This petition”:–comin§V on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’
g|’O,,Ilfi:3, this dayitthe Court made the following:
QRDER
. “‘C..__«XPeti”t_i.orier/..plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.26711/2007
in the €;:ity”Civii Court, Bangalore, against the defendants
44’.,:for’i___the”‘ relief of partition and separate possession of
‘plaintiff’s half share in the suit scheduie property and to
“declare the settlement deed O4.G6.20§\7§,(executecl by the
/
r4
3
defendants 1 & 2 in favour of defendants 3 to 5 as a sham
& void document and not binding on him and for
consequential reliefs. Defendants 1 & 2 filed w”‘r’i.t;ten
statement on 05.11.2007. They also made
claim seeking partition of movables
properties. Issues were framedfandifsa.vit’2_was–
trial. 4″‘ defendant/4″‘ respondent-.Afi’ied I.A’..”u.nde’r
VIII Rule 1A (1) & (3) read w4:.tVh1»SectidnV_ 151′.-= o”fv_cE5c and 0′
Sections 65 (a) to (c) o’f”‘i§_{nd.en’vce.«Act, to receive the
listed documents therein vAA.fpx_”_’.pe marked as
defendants’ ifhe: Vsopréosed the prayer in
the said -statement of objections on
04.08.2010.” _ Up.o’n.’ conasiideration, the trial court has
aliovfiiefd the sa’id….appiication by its order dated 12.08.2010.
.0110; wrIt.pp.et-i.ti_on filed on 25.09.2010 is directed against
agasaia
if H ” one 205.110.2010.
‘ – Respondents have filed statement of objections
/4,/”
4
3. Heard the Eearned counsei on both sides and
perused the writ petition papers. The documents sought
to be produced aiong with the aforesaid appiication aresthe
foilowing:
1. Notice u/ Order 12 Rules 4 K
05.06.2008 got issued:-“th1’o1;1gl’i Aafve.c;aie..i’..fd1=’
Defendants 3 to 5 by toftiie learned Adifo.cate:
for plaintiff, Sri R.P.Sornashei<hafiahfto:
facts stated in the Noticefwith copy 'ofjfpostafl receipt
and Acknowledgement'*ca.rd:'"~..\' ,. ..
2. Notice u/Ordve’r..f:i2A l07_{u12,-jg 22.01.2009
got issued through.Adirooate=.fo’1;~:f._I:2efendants 3 to 5
by RPM) ‘to the for plaintiff, Sri
.. tofproduce before this Hon’ble
Cou1″t stated in the Notice with copy
of éposvtafi’ Acknowledgement card;
Notice uu’;fOrdVerfi2 Rule 8 CPC dated 07.04.2009
‘issued by”{3efendants 1 81 2 by RP to the learned
‘Ad«Vocate for plaintiff, Sn’ R.P.So1nashekhariah to
* before this Hon’b1e Court the documents
4′ . in the Notice with copy of postal receipt;
0 .4.0’«SaIe deed dated 08.03.1982 by Narayana
Jagannatharn in favour of Narayana Rarnaiah
registered as No.999/82-83 at Pages 252-253 in
Vo1.No.1163 at the Office of Sub–registrar, Kadri
Taluk for Rs.3000 i
/’
5. Sale deed dated 08.03.1982 by Narayana
Jagannatham in favour of Narayana Ratrtaigah
registered as No.1000/82-83 at Pages Lie
VoI.No.1164 at the Office of Sub–registrarQ
Taluk for Rs.8000
4. Petitioner does not Zadispustge
notices as at Si.Nos.1 to 3.»su.pra. V7′!’_he petit’i’doVVne_r:Vhalving
had the custody of said noticeisydicouid hav.ei_’prodfuced the
same in case there we-refa’nyi_ v.ari1a”n.._c’eiA”i’n the xerox copies
that were produced A.a§0df.’9 “the’:Vi–‘i.Vapp|ication. The
petitioner copies of the
sale deteds date_d Vo’t3′;o3;:.V%;ia2 }»d’tg=;ési’ieii-ted at SE.Nos.-4 8L 5. The
contention of’ that, the certified copies
could _havei’b»ee’ii .ot=.taAi’:_ied”iand produced.
indisputedly, after the impugned order was
1″pa’s.sed}” d’e.tertda”.nts having obtained the certified copy of
the”‘saEe’:deeds, have produced the same before the trial
The said documents have been marked on
f 2i.§i’;oi9.2o1o as Ex.D-58 to Ex.E)-63. This writ petition filed
“on 25.09.2010 without disclosing the event that has taken
/'”
-J
place on 24.09.2010 i.e., marking of five documents, is
untenable.
6. The trial court having consideredg,….t,lje,’:’claim’.
made in the application and the objectionshof”‘t.he.jp~i.aintiifi,
noticing the fact that the docurvnentsr pr*odLi’cedi’–Egireiéjoti
available on the record, has perm’itte’d the,.»’p’_rod’uct’ioii,,of’–..
xerox copies to be used a’s~,secondaryVeizidence. The
impugned order, in the..gfaci:ds'”ano ci’rcumsta”nces of the
case, does not suffer from prc»c,edurai_’..impropriety or
irrationality. .The_,ts—iaiizcourt5hasi:’n’o’t.. committed any illegal
act in ,al’ioVwingf.the:¥app:l:ica’tion “f_i|Ve”dfl by the defendants.
I:x1V\u/ievvl writ petition is devoid of
merit and sh’al_l stand “dismissed.
re.sponVde’i”‘its 1 8: 2 are senior citizens. The suit
_V__is_T_font-..rel’i’ef_:”pf partition and separate possession.
Def_endan.ts’ 1;i.’8a 2 have also made a counter-claim. In view
‘*.,of th”e,V__A’i~provisions under the Karnataka (Case Flow
,,g/j/(.,§”»4,.a,rlf§i1gement in Sub-Ordinate Couvij Rules, 2005, keeping
/”..
/’
7
in view the nature of relief prayed in the suit and the fact
that defendants 1 & 2 are senior citizens, the trial court is
directed to complete the trial and dispose of the as
early as practicable and at any event, within a..~pe4rAiodc-of};
months from the date a copy of this order Tits _
record.
Ksj/ —