IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.33320/2019(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. LATE RAMSWAMY AGE: MAJOR 2. SRI. RAJAN S/O. LATE RAMSWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SMT. PREMA D/O. LATE RAMSWAMY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. SMT. VANITHA D/O. LATE RAMSWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.426, JAGDA NILAYA H.B.R 2ND BLOCK BRINDAVAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 043. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. R. NATESAN S/O. LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.34, ASHOK NAGAR KADUGONDANAHALLI, A.C. POST BANGALORE – 560 045.
REP. BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER SRI. PRABHU N.
S/O. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.17, ASHOK NAGAR KADUGONDANAHALLI, A.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 045. … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-74), IN O.S.NO.26647/2013, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.26647/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 10.07.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has granted leave to the respondent-plaintiff for production of certain documents having allowed his application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, 1908.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court refuses to grant indulgence in the matter because:
a) the documents now sought to be produced are the copies of public record and their production although is belated cannot be faltered; the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BAGAI CONSTRUCTION Vs. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE, 2013 (14) SCC 1 does not come to the aid of the petitioners inasmuch as, in the said case, private documents were sought to be produced belatedly;
b) the contention that the petitioners were not heard in the matter does not avail to them since the Court below has recorded their absence on 10.07.2019; this apart, a cost of Rs.500/- is also imposed payable to the petitioners; and, c) the impugned order being a product of exercise of discretion by Court below, this Court ordinarily does not undertake a deeper scrutiny under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide decision of the Apex Court in the case of TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG VS. RAMCHANDRA GANESH BIDE AIR 1977 SC 1222, para 3.
In the above circumstances, writ petition stands disposed off without interference. However, it is open to the petitioners to make the impugned order a ground of challenge to the adverse decree if and when made, as provided under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908.
KTY Sd/- JUDGE