IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.29972-75 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. L NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT ANKAYANAPALYA VILLAGE, AJJANAHALLI DAKALE TAVEREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 2. L NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT ANKAYANAPALYA VILLAGE, AJJANAHALLI DAKALE TAVEREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 3. SMT KARIYAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT UDDANDALAHALLI VILLAGE DONNENAHALLI DAKALE TAVEREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK (By Mr. K R SRINIVASAN ADV. FOR R1-3 ) AND:
1. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, … PETITIONERS R/AT MADIGARAPALYA (A.K. COLONY) AJJANAHALLI DAKALE TAVAREKERE HBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK (By Mr.T N VISWANATHA, ADV.) - - -
… RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:28.6.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA PASSED IN MISC NO.10/2014 ON IA NO.V TO VIII AS PER ANNEXURE-L.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. K.R.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.T.N.Viswanatha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.06.2018 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XVII Rule 14(3) to produce documents as well as an application under Order XVII Rule 17 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’ for short) for permission to lead further evidence has been rejected by the Trial Court.
4. Facts giving raise to the filing of the petitions are that petitioners have filed a petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the respondent for revocation/setting aside the exparte order on probate dated 30.06.2012. The respondent appeared before the court and filed detailed statement of objection. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the issues and the evidence of Plaintiff Witness No.1 and Plaintiff Witness No.2 was recorded and the case was posted on 14.03.2018 for cross-examination of PW2. Thereafter on 23.04.2018, petitioners filed two applications under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 and under order XVIII Rule 17 the Code to lead further evidence. The Trial Court vide order dated 28.06.2018 has rejected the aforesaid applications.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case one opportunity is granted to them they will produce the documents and Trial Court ought to have taken sympathetic view of the matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
In the back drop of preceding analysis, the facts of the case may be looked into.
7. In the instant case, the petition was filed in the year 2014 and Plaintiff Witness No.1 submitted his examination-in-chief on affidavit on 13.07.2016 and he has been cross-examined on 19.02.2018. The documents on which reliance has been placed have been obtained on 24.06.2015 and some of the documents are of the years 2012 and 2013. The Trial Court has therefore, held that the documents were in the custody of the petitioners before adducing evidence in the petition. However, the aforesaid documents have not been produced and marked. No explanation has been furnished as to why the aforesaid documents could not be produced in earlier point of time. Therefore, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any explanation with regard to non production of documents earlier in point of time, the application cannot be allowed.
8. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order does neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS