IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.NO.26130 OF 2019 & W.P.NO.28912/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.M.G.HARIBABU, S/O G.GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.891/5, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.S.RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
S.MANJUNATH, S/O LATE K.SRIRAMULU NAIDU, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14/2, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.R.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 10.6.2019 ON IA-3 AND IA-
4 IN O.S.7482/2017 BY THE II ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JDUGE AND SPL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner being the defendant in respondent’s suit in O.S.No.7482/2017 for a decree of specific performance founded on registered agreement to sell dated 26.12.2014, is knocking at the doors of this court for assailing the order dated 10.06.2019, whereby the learned II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has allowed his applications in I.A.Nos. 3 & 4, wherein leave to produce documents by way of additional evidence had been sought for. The respondent having entered Caveat through his counsel, resists the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the subject documents now sought to be produced would throw light on his financial capacity and thereby dilute the version of the other side as to the circumstances in which the alleged agreement to sell came to be entered into and therefore the Court below could not have allowed the subject applications; in the earlier round of litigation this court in W.P.No.7947/2019 c/w W.P.No.9068/2019 vide order dated 05.04.2019 had remanded the matter for consideration afresh and that the court below has not considered the matter in the Page Nos. 2 to 5 are Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order Dated 26.07.2019.
right perspective. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra contends that the petitioner is dragging on the suit proceedings with one or the other excuse; the document now sought to be produced are relevant to the adjudication of the lis; no explanation is offered by the respondent for not producing the same at the earliest point of time; the impugned order being a product of exercise of discretion by the court below does not merit interference by this court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is of the considered view that the leave to produce some of the subject documents ought to have been granted by the trial court because:
(i) some of the documents now sought to be produced, namely, certified copies of the RTCs pertaining to some agricultural lands in K.G.Jajoor village are the public records generated under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and certified copies of the two registered sale deeds dated 05.04.2013 whereunder respondent’s aunt Smt. K.Jayalakshmi had sold some property; the production of these documents would not in any way prejudice the case of the petitioner side and conversely, production would prejudice the case of the petitioner; these documents may throw light on the issue involved in the suit for specific performance; of course, the question of their relevancy & admissibility is for the trial court to consider; and (ii) whatever little prejudice the other side may suffer by delayed production of these documents can be remedied by imposing some reasonable costs i.e., Rs.2,000/- to the respondent; a condition also can be stipulated that respondent shall not make any more applications in the suit nor drag on the proceedings.
5. However, no case is made out by the respondent for the production of copies of four rental agreements allegedly executed by himself and his wife; these documents are post suit documents and they are neither relevant nor remotely connected with the issue, otherwise also.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order is set aside; respondent’s subject applications are favoured and leave is accorded for production of documents enlisted at Sl. Nos.1 & 3 of the said applications on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner-defendant within one month or on the next date of hearing of the suit whichever is later, failing which the impugned order shall stand quashed.
It is open to the petitioner to produce his documents, if any, by way of additional evidence for rebuttal, on grounds being shown, therefor.
The period for payment of the cost levied, is extended upto 13.08.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc