IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.11459 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI H S KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE HBS NAIK, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.67, 2ND FLOOR, DOOPANAHALLY, SRIRAM TEMPLE ROAD, 2ND STAGE, HAL, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 008.
ALSO AT: ISWARYA BAR AND RESTAURANT, NO.17, 1/2/24-25, MOTHER DAIRY CIRCLE, CHIKKABAMMASANDRA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 106.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI N S BHAT FOR SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI CHANNESA @ H L CHANESHA, S/O LATE M LOKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, MOTHER DAIRY CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 106.
2. SMT GOWRAMMA, D/O SRI CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 106.
(BY SRI SAKET BISANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI H MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.1/2018 PASSED BY THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29), BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.26105/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REJECT I.A.NO.1/2018 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/R-1 UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in an eviction suit in O.S.No.26105/2015 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 25.01.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – F whereby learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, having favoured respondent-plaintiffs’ application in I.A.No.1/2018, has permitted him to produce & mark the photostat copy of a purported rental agreement in evidence subject to out come of this writ petition.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel, resist the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) it is a settled position of law vide decision of Madras High Court that photostat copies of document can be marked in evidence of-course subject to proof of transaction comprised therein provided that foundation is laid therefor; the proceedings exhibit that such a foundation has been laid for the production of secondary evidence inasmuch as allegedly the original lies with the petitioner himself;
(b) the contention of the petitioner that under no circumstance, photostat copy of a document can be marked, appears to be too wide a proposition and the court below has rightly rejected the same in the facts and circumstances of the case; the other contention that there is already rental agreement between the petitioner and vendor of the respondent-plaintiff herein, is no ground for interdicting production of secondary evidence of alleged subsequent rental agreement.
4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed; however, it is open to the petitioner to press into service the rental agreement between himself and the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff for deriving whatever benefit there from as against the respondent herein, in accordance with law.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
The learned trial Judge is requested to hear and dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year.
No costs.
cbc Sd/- JUDGE