IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.1399 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. N. SHYLAJA, W/O SRI. N. PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT #6, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, LALBAHADUR SHASTRI NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.J.G.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. N. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT #6, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, LALBAHADUR SHASTRI NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038.
2. SRI. S. SUNIL, S/O LATE N. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RAJA HAIR DRESSES, CHANCHALA RAMAIAH BUILDING, M.E.S. ROAD, MUTHYALANAGAR,, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013.
3. SMT. VARALAKSHMI, W/O RAVANAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, MES ROAD, NEAR S.T.CLARET SCHOOL, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAM, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-5) ON IA-6 FILED UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 14, READ WITH S.151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD:25.11.2014 IN O.S.NO.9006/2011 AS PER ANNEXURE – A TO THE PETITION ALLOW THE I.A.-6 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.9006/2011 with respect to the joint family properties. The plaintiff at the time of the evidence has filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C.
seeking leave of the Court to permit the plaintiff to produce documents at serial Nos.1 to 5.
2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff that the said documents are necessary as the same would help the plaintiff to prove her case. As regards not having mentioned about the said documents in the plaint itself counsel submits that the explanation for belated production, is found in para No.2 of the affidavit, wherein it is stated that the said documents were in the possession of the plaintiff’s father who expired on 12.10.2012 and it is only subsequent to the death of the plaintiff’s father, that the plaintiff came upon the said documents. The said application has been objected to, before the trial Court. The trial Court has dismissed the said application vide the impugned order noticing that no leave of the Court has been sought for. The Court has also observed that the suit was of the year 2011 and that the plaintiff was aware of the said documents and ought to have produced the same along with the plaint.
3. Heard the both counsel.
4. It is noticed that as per Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C., it clearly provides permission to produce documents at a subsequent stage, even if it is not entered in the list annexed with the plaint with the leave of the Court. In the present case, the contents of the affidavit clearly make out a case that the plaintiff was not in the possession of the documents and same were in the possession of her father and subsequent to the death of her father, the plaintiff has come across the documents. Explanation is sufficient and the same is ought to have been taken note by the trial Court. The observations of the Court in the impugned order are contrary to the observations made in the affidavit. Even otherwise, the trial Court has misconstrued the provision of Order VII (3) of C.P.C.. It is clear that case is made out for allowing the said application. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioner – plaintiff is allowed, and the plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents.
5. Taking note that the suit relates to the year 2011, the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case by taking note of the seniority viz-a-viz other pending cases. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj