IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.26419/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri.Shivaraju, S/o Late Elekeri Shetty, Aged about 73 years, R/at Nehru Road, Periyapatna Town, Mysore District – 571107.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Salmani Prakash, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri.P.K.Rajshekar, S/o Late P.D.Kempegowda, Aged about 61 years.
2. Sri.P.K.Umesh, S/o Late P.D.Kempegowda, Aged about 51 years.
Both are r/at Sannaiahana Beedi, Periyapatna Town, Mysore District – 571107.
3. Chief Officer, Town Panchayathi, Periyapatna Town, Mysore District – 571107.
4. Smt.Mangala Gowri, W/o M.Ramesh, Aged about 44 years.
5. Sri.K.P.Anitha, W/o Siddalingesha, Aged about 35 years.
6. Sri.Mamatha, W/o K.N.Gowrish, Aged about 41 years.
All are r/at Nehru Road, Periyapatna Town, Mysore District – 571107.
(By Sri.Suneel.S.Narayan, Advocate for R1 ...Respondents v/o dated 17.07.2015 – service of notice to R3 to R6 is dispensed with R2 - served) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the civil judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC at Periyapatna dated 03.06.2015 at Annex-E on I.A.No.XXII u/o 7 Rule 14 of CPC in O.S.No.269/2009.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The plaintiffs have challenged the order of the trial Court whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to permit the plaintiffs to produce the documents along with list annexed with the application. The plaintiffs has sought to produce the postal cover and accounts extract. The trial Court has rejected the application while holding that series of applications had been filed at an earlier point of time under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC which are I.A.Nos.5, 7, 9 and 15 and that yet another application has been filed to produce additional documents. The Court has also observed that the application has been filed to protract and prolong the proceedings.
2. Looking into the nature of request sought for, though there may have been some lapse in not producing the said document at an earlier point of time, the weight of evidence to be placed with respect to such documents to be produced being matter for appreciation when evidence is adduced. Accordingly, the application deserves to be allowed. It is also to be noted that the documents sought to be produced not being suit documents, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by permitting late production. The request to produce additional documents ought to be allowed though the plaintiff is subjected to cost for not conducting the litigation diligently.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed under Order 9 Rule 14 is allowed. The plaintiffs to pay further cost of Rs.2,000/- to the defendants.
4. Taking note that the suit relates to the year 2009, it is made clear that the plaintiffs is to diligently prosecute the suit and not to take unnecessary adjournments and also the trial Court to dispose of the suit taking note of the seniority of the suit Vis-à-Vis other pending matters including administrative directions issued for disposal of suits.
Sd/- JUDGE NS