IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.3823-3825 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. S.B. PANCHAKSHARI, S/O C. SANGANNA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O C. SANGANNA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 3. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O MANJUNATHA, D/O C. SANGANNA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O KAVADEGARA HATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TQ & DIST – 577501. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGADE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, EX- GPA MEMBER, 2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 4. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 5. NEELAPPA, S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. NINGAPPA, S/O JEDARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KAVADEGARAHATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TQ & DIST – 577501. ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.382/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.382/2012, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 9.1.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-K made by the learned III Addl. Civil Judge, Chitradurga, whereby their application in I.A.No.14 filed under Section 151 of CPC, has been disfavoured.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers, it is opined that the matter does not merit intervention at the hands of writ court inasmuch as no plausible explanation is offered by the petitioners for not producing the documents now sought to be produced that too when arguments in the suit are half a through. Secondly, the documents now sought to be produced are not shown to be relevant to the facts in issue which Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for with the exclusionary clause which reads “and of no others”.
In the above circumstances, the writ petitions being devoid of merits, are rejected in limine.
However, the observations made herein above shall not influence the decision making in the suit, otherwise.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc