IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.54025 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
B.C.Subash, S/o.Chikka Siddappa, Aged 63 years, Residing at No.400, Seventh Cross, Fourth Block, Opposite to Raheja Residency, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034. ... PETITIONER (By Sri.D.N.Manjunath, Adv.) AND:
Smt.Venkatamma, W/o. Late Venkataramanappa @ Sonnayya, Since dead by LR’s.:
1(a). Sri.Adinarayana, S/o. Late. Lakshminarasamma, Aged 47 years, 1(b). Sri.Jayarama, S/o.Late. Lakshminarasamma, Aged 43 years, Respondents 1(a) to 1(b) are Residing at Mazjid Road, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East-560 016.
1(c). Smt.Radhika, D/o.Sri.Ramaiah Setty, Aged 33 years, 1(d). Sri.Hemanth Kumar, S/o.Sri.Ramaiah Setty, Aged 31 years, 1(e). Sri.Nagaraja, S/o.Sri.Ramaiah Setty, Aged 27 years, Respondents Nos.1(c) to (e) are Residing at Old Police Station Road, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560 016.
1(f). Sri.Anjaneyalu, S/o. Late Subbaiah Settee, Aged 32 years, 1(g). Smt.Anitha, D/o. Late Subbaiah Settee, Age 30 years, 1(h). Sri.Anil Kumar, S/o. Late. Subbaiah Settee, Aged 27 years, Respondents 1(f) to 1(h) are Residing at Old Police Station Road, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560 016.
1(i). Sri.Raghavendra, S/o. Sri. Narayana Setty, Aged 31 years, 1(j). Smt.Priyanka, D/o.Sri.Narayana Setty, Aged 29 years, Respondents 1(i) to 1(j) are Residing at K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East-560 016.
1(k). Smt.Saraswathamma, D/o. Late Venkatamma, W/o. Sri.Narasimhalu, Aged 57 years, Residing at K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East-560 016.
2. Sri.Ramaiah, S/o. Late. Venkataramanappa @ Sonnayappa, Aged about 42 years, 3. Smt.Ashwathamma, W/o.Late.Subbaiah Setty, Aged about 38 years, Respondents 2 and 3 are residing at K.R.Puram, Bengaluru South Taluk-560 016.
4. Sri.Narayana Setty, S/o.Late.Venkataramanappa @ Sonnayappa, Since dead by 4(a). Smt.N.Suvarnamma, W/o.Late.Narayana Setty, Aged about 61 years, Residing at K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East-560 016. ...RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order produced as Annexure-D passed by the Hon’ble XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-
23 in O.S.8681/2001 dated 22-10-2018 on I.A.No.33 rejecting the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to examine the witness namely the District Treasurer, Government of Karnataka and to produce the relevant entries dated 30-03-1996 to 04-04- 1996 for having sold the non-judicial stamp paper for the said period.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed on I.A. No.33 in O.S. No.8681/2001 on the file of the XXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner has filed O.S. No.8681/2001 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.05.1992 as well as the agreements of sale dated 05.03.1996 and 06.12.1998. In the said proceedings, I.A. No.33 is filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to examine the Deputy District Treasurer, Non Judicial Stamp Paper, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru and to direct the said Deputy District Treasurer to cause production of relevant entries dated 30.03.1996 to 04.04.1996 for having sold non judicial stamp papers during the said period. The Trial Court analysing the material available on record extensively, dismissed the said application. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court committed an error in misconstruing the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 10395/2016 and connected matter which relate to the application filed by the petitioner under S.65 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein the petitioner has sought for re- opening the case and for appointment of a Court Commissioner(handwriting expert) to verify certain signatures of defendant No.2. Rejection of the said application confirmed by this Court would not be a ground for rejection of the present application which stands on a different footing.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner requires to be negated for the reason that the reference made by the Trial Court to the earlier applications filed by the petitioner is confirmed by this Court in W.P. No.10395/2016 and allied matter only to emphasise the conduct of the petitioner in filing the multiple applications successively with an intention to protract the proceedings. The matter is pending since 2001 and in the suit for specific performance, the petitioner / plaintiff has now come up with a request to consider his application to examine the Deputy District Treasurer and to produce the entries from 30.03.1996 to 04.04.1996. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court has categorically observed that there is no specific pleading taken by the petitioner in this regard and such question of examining the witness and production of documents as sought for, would not arise at all. This finding goes to the root of the matter and no material is placed on record to discard the said finding of the Trial Court.
In view of the aforesaid, no jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*