IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.42678-80 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LR’S.
1. SRI. VENKATARAMA REDDY G.K. S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED 57 YEARS R/AT. 12TH B CROSS, 2ND MAIN AMARAVATHI LAYOUT BANGARPET-563115.
2. SRI. GANGA REDDY G.K. S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED 51 YEARS R/AT. GAJAGA VILLAGE MAGONDI POST BANGARPET TALUK-563115.
3. SMT. RADHA W/O BYRAREDDY D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED 46 YEARS HONNENAHALLI RAJANAKUNTE POST-560064 YELLAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
4. SMT. PREMA G W/O BABU REDDY D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HONNENAHALLI RAJANAKUNTE POST-560064 YELLAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
(By Mr. CHANDRA MOHAN J.G. ADV.) … PETITIONERS AND:
1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATA REDDY AGEDA BOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. VENKATESHWARA APARTMENT NEAR RAMAR TEMPLE NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560075.
2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA @ ASHWATHNARAYANAMMA W/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED 53 YEARS R/AT. GAJIGA VILLAGE MAGUNDHI POST BANGARPET TALUK-563115.
3. SMT. D.M. MANJULAMMA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. No.28/1, PUTTAPPA COLONY NEAR RAMAR TEMPLE NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560075.
4. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
5. SRI. MADHAN S/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
6. SMT. RAMYA D/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 21 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT. No.28/1, PUTTAPPA COLONY NEAR RAMAR TEMPLE NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560075.
7. SRI. D.M. BABU REDDY S/O MUNIVENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. 13TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS SRI. MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-562119.
8. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O MUNIVENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS C/O SUBBARAYAPPA 2ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BANGARPET – 563115.
9. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O R. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 43 YEARS R/AT. A-10, NAL COMPLEX BENGALURU-560017.
10. SMT. D.M. NARASAMMA W/O P. ANANDA REDDY AGED 42 YEARS R/AT. KODTHI VILLAGE SARJAPURA ROAD CARMELRAM POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560087.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR Mr. K.H. THIMMIAH, ADV., FOR R1, R3-R9 V/O DTD:18-1-2018 NOTICE TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH Mr. P. USMAN, ADV., FOR R3 Mr. BASAVARAJ PATEL G.K. ADV., FOR R2, R4, R5, R7 & R8) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the Sr. Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, KGF in O.S.69/2014 on IA8 filed under order 7 Rule 14(1) of CPC seeking permission to produce the additional documents, I.A.9 under Sec. 151 of CPC to recall the PW-1 for further examination and I.A.-10 under Sec. 151 of CPC to reopen the case dated 4-9-2017 at Annex-A to petition, allow the applications I.A.-8, 9 and 10 and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court, by which application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) seeking permission to produce additional documents, application under Section 151 of the Code seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross examination and application under Section 151 of the Code seeking permission to produce the documents, have been rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The respondent No.7 filed the written statement which was adopted by respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6, 8 and 9. On 01.07.2017, the petitioner filed the aforesaid applications. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid applications inter alia on the ground that the evidence which is sought to be produced is an electronic evidence and the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
3. Sri.Chandra Mohan J.G., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction inasmuch as the applications were filed only for permission to produce additional documents. However, the aforesaid applications have been rejected by holding the documents to be inadmissible in evidence.
4. On the other hand, Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel has supported the order passed by the Trial Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(1) as well as under Section 151 of the Code have been rejected only on the ground that the provisions contained under Section 65B has not been complied with, by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the applications were filed only seeking production of documents. Therefore, the Trial Court is required to address only the issue as to whether the petitioner should be given permission to produce the aforesaid documents or not. The impugned order therefore suffers from error apparent on the face of record and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application submitted by the petitioner afresh after hearing the parties by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that in case the applications preferred by the petitioners are allowed, as and when the petitioner tenders the aforesaid documents in evidence, the Trial Court shall decide the question with regard to admissibility of aforesaid evidence in view of the provisions laid down in Section 65B of the Evidence Act, if it is permitted and the same is applicable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV