IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 14365/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
R KRISHNA MURTHY S/O RAMASWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.69, KARUMARAMPALYAM UTHKULI MAIN ROAD, TIRUPUR -641 604 TAMIL NADU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V GANESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE D R MADHAVA KRISHNAIAH NOW DECEASED AND SUBSTITUTED BY LRS:
1A. NAGARATHNA W/O M KRISHNAMURTHY, MAJOR 1B. K PURUSHOTHAM S/O M KRISHNAMURTHY,MAJOR 1C. K BALACHANDER S/O M KRISHNAMURTHY,MAJOR 1D. K SHYAM SUNDER S/O M KRISHNAMURTHY, MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2018 AS 179/2015 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN AS 179/2015 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CCH-27 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.S.V.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Taking into account, the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
3. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.03.2018 by which the petitioner has been directed to produce the original agreement. The impugned order reads as under:
“ Petitioner-ab Respondents – ab Sri HLR for SS prays time.
The petitioner is directed to produce the original Agreement concerned. Call on 21.6.2018”.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order, it is evident that the order is cryptic in nature and does not assign any reasons for issuing a direction to the petitioner to produce the original agreement. The order passed by the Trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor 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.
5. 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].
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, 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 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as an same is passed with non-application of mind and does not assign any reasons.
7. The impugned order is quashed. The trial Court is directed to hear the parties and to decide the issues pertaining to production of documents by a speaking order in accordance with law.
Accordingly this petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/