IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.34586 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
S. RAMESH S/O. LATE H.SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT 627, S.K.VILAS SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.V.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.MAHALAKSHMI W/O.LATE K.V.SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT 5TH PHEASANT DRIVE MOUNT LAUREL NJ 08054, USA REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER PARAMPALLI MALATHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.63, H.COLONY INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 2. SMT.JALAJA RAMACHANDRA W/O.K.M.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.55, SATHYAJOTHA I.T.I.LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD BENGALURU-560 054 3. SMT.ANURADHA W/O.P.N.SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.2 C/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR, ADYAR CHENNAI-600 020 4. S.RAGHAVENDRA S/O.LATE H.SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.1/1/12A, PADU SAGARI KUNJUBETTU POST UDUPI-576 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE COURT OF XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU ON IA FILED UNJDER ORDER XI RULE 14 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.1079/2015 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the first defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.1079/2015 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Order dated 05.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E whereby the Learned XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having rejected his application filed under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, has refused to direct the contesting respondent herein to produce the documents sought for. The contesting respondent No.2 having entered caveat through his counsel resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter since the petitioner has not stated as to why he needs subject documents in a partition suit and how he will be prejudiced if these documents are not produced. This reasoning of the Court below cannot be faltered.
3. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek drawing of adverse inference, if any, at the appropriate stage by production of subject documents or at the stage for non production of said documents, by reviving his request at the appropriate stage of the suit proceeding should there arise new grounds.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits is disposed off, with the above observations.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY