IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 23948/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI K.R. PRABHU S/O LATE SHRI K.N. RAMACHANDRA SWAMY, MAJOR, R/O NO.51, SUBBRAMA CHETTY ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 041.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK BENGALURU-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BENGALURU CITY CORPORATION (DIVISION 60), JAYANAGAR COMPLEX, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.
3. SMT. S. BAGAWATEE W/O SHRI S.R.N.MURTHY R/O NO.136/69, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.
4. SHRI C. HANUMANTHA RAO S/O SHRI K. CHANNAKESHAVA RAO R/O NO.343/18, MARIYAPPANA PALYA, 12TH CROSS ROAD BENGALURU-560 021.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
V.C.O DATED 02.06.2016 NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 PASSED BY XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5711/2003 ON I.A.NO.II/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW I.A.NO.II/2015 FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri A.Ravishankar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Tharanath Shetty K., learned Advocate appearing for first respondent. By order dated 02.06.2016 notice to respondents-2 to 4 has been dispensed with.
2. Petitioner herein has filed a suit to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit property namely, site bearing No.71/116 situated at 6th Main Road, 5th Block, Jayanagar, City Corporation Division No.60, Bengaluru morefully described in the plaint – Annexure-B and for other consequential reliefs.
3. During the course of trial, an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff for a direction to the first defendant to produce Allotment Ledger Extract relating to suit schedule property contending interalia that original document is with the first defendant and production of same would disclose nature of events that has taken place in respect of suit schedule property namely, date of allotment and in whose favour suit property came to be allotted.
4. It is the plea of the plaintiff that he had purchased suit schedule property on 09.03.1990 under a registered sale deed from third defendant and being aggrieved by action of first defendant – BDA impounding suit property he had challenged the said action of the BDA in W.P.No.28286/2003 and in the said writ petition, Allotment Register Extract relating to the suit property had been produced along with statement of objections as Annexure-R-1 and on account of writ petition having been dismissed by granting liberty to the petitioner, he had approached the Civil Court and suit in question had been filed and as such it was contended that original register which was sought to be produced by first defendant would have a direct bearing on the claim of the plaintiff. After considering the objections filed by first defendant, trial Court has rejected the said application by impugned order on the ground that plaintiff can as well apply for certified copy under the Right to Information Act and on account of such exercise having not been undertaken, first defendant cannot be called upon to produce the said document.
5. On a pointed question by the Court to Sri Tharanath Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for first respondent as to whether Allotment Ledger Extract which had been produced by the BDA in W.P.No.28286/2003 along with statement of objections as Annexure- R1 is still in existence, he submits that he has verified from the officials of BDA and on their instructions he submits that said original Register is still with the BDA. In that view of the matter, if first defendant is called upon to produce said document, no prejudice would be caused to first defendant and in order to put a quietus to the dispute between plaintiff and first defendant, contents of said Register or entries found therein would be of use to the trial Court itself for adjudicating the real controversy between parties. Hence, prayer sought for in the writ petition deserves to be granted.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Order dated 24.03.2016 passed by XL Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5771/2003 insofar as rejection of I.A.No.2/2015 is concerned, is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.2/2015 filed by plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC – Annexure-L is hereby allowed and first defendant - first respondent is hereby directed to produce Allotment Ledger Extract which had been produced by it as Annexure-R1 along with statement of objections filed in W.P.No.28286/2003, a copy of which is appended to this writ petition as Annexure-H by next date of hearing before trial Court.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.I/2017 for stay does not arise and it is hereby rejected.
SD/- JUDGE *sp