IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 60436 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJU, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/AT BOODHITHITTU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTIRCIT.
(BY SRI. P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. SHANKARE GOWDA, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HABATURU KOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSROE DISTRICT – 571 007.
(BY SRI. V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.11.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.67/2011 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, PERIYAPATNA, PASSED ON I.A.NO.11 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.67/2011 for an injunctive relief is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 05.11.2016 a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby the learned Civil Judge at Pririyapatna, has rejected his application filed under Order VII Rule 14(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking condonation of delay brooked in the production of documents and for the leave to produce them. The respondent after service of notice, having entered appearance through his counsel resists the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order has an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this Court, inasmuch as, it prevents him from putting forth the evidentiary material in support of his averments, when the settled position of law is that ordinarily a litigant should have full freedom to produce whatever evidence he wants to, of course, subject to rule of relevancy & admissibility; this important legal principle having not been borne in mind, the learned trial judge has grossly erred in the matter; the production of these documents most of which are the certified copies of public records would cause no prejudice to other side; conversely if production is not permitted, petitioner would be put to a manifest injustice. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra contends that the writ petition is devoid of merits; the Court below at paragraph No.8 of its impugned order has given cogent reasons as to why petitioner’s request could not be acceded to; the reasoning of the Court below cannot be faltered, even otherwise also. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, I am of the considered opinion that the request for production of subject documents needs to be favoured, on cost & condition, because:-
i) the leave to produce these documents is sought for belatedly is true, but the petitioner has explained the circumstances in his affidavit supporting the application and the said explanation appears to be plausible;
ii) ordinarily, a party to the litigation should be permitted to produce all and whatever evidentiary material which he intends to; there is some delay in producing the said documents per se is not a sufficient ground to dislodge the said principle especially when what prejudice would be caused to the other side by their production, has not been shown;
iii) the leave to produce these documents ought to have been favourably considered by the Court below inasmuch as, these are copies of the public records or copies of the private documents kept in the public office vide Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and iv) the version of the Court below that the petitioner has abused the process of Court by repeatedly making one or the other application appears to be too farfetched, especially when his earlier applications were favoured by the Court, only the present one having been found fault with.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; petitioner’s application in IA No.11 filed under Order 7 Rule 14(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been favoured, leave is accorded for the production of the subject documents on cost of Rs.5.000/- payable to the respondent and subject to the condition that no more such application/s shall be filed.
The petitioner shall pay the cost within a period of one month or on the next date of hearing, whichever is later, failing which the order now quashed, shall stand resurrected.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv