IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.10563-564 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN MR. IRWIN ANDRADE, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, S/O LATE ROSARIO MATHEW ANDRADE, RESIDING AT K.C. ROAD, BEHIND GOVERNMENT TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE, AJJARKAD, UDUPI - 576 101, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA MR. DOMINIC MASCARENHAS. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND MR. TERRENCE ANDRADE, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE ROSARIO MATHEW ANDRADE, PROPRIETOR, UDUPI FURNITURE MART, K.M. MARG ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD:9.1.2017 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI ON I.A.NO.VI AND VII FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER III, RULE 2 R/W SECTION 151 AND ORDER VII RULE 14(3) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESPECTIVELY DISMISSING THE SAME IN O.S.NO.54/2014 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in a money suit in O.S.No.54/2014, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 9.1.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A whereby, his application in I.A.No.VI filed under Order III Rule 2 of CPC for permitting his GPA holder to depose on his behalf and another application in I.A.No.VII filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC for seeking leave to produce additional documents, have been rejected. After service of notice, the defendant-respondent having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the Writ Petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, the impugned order to the extent it rejects the said application in I.A.No.VI filed under Order III Rule 2 cannot be faltered inasmuch as the same was not filed by the plaintiff himself but was moved by the plaintiff’s GPA holder who incidentally is his son-in-law. However, this order shall not come in the way of petitioner himself making such an application if grounds do exist therefor; if such an application is moved, the court below shall consider the same on merits expeditiously.
3. However, the impugned order denying leave to the petitioner to produce additional documents in terms of application in I.A.No.VII needs to be set at naught inasmuch as the subject documents prima facie appear to be relevant to the adjudication of the lis in hand and that a plausible explanation is offered by him for producing them at a belated stage. Ordinarily, parties should be free to produce all documents subject to the rider that they shall not brook unnecessary delay, is true. However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, the rigor of this general rule is not invocable here.
In the above circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it rejects the petitioner for production of additional documents having been set at naught, leave is accorded for producing the same. The court below shall receive the said documents on record and process the matter further.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are disposed off.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc