IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.5548/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.V.NAGARAJA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560087. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI ANAND BEERANNAVAR, ADV.] AND:
1. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI GOPAL S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. SRI THULASI S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560066.
5. SMT RAJITHA W/O SRI ANILKUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 16/1191, KASTURI DEVI NAGAR POGATHOTA, NELLURU ANDHRA PRADESH-624204.
6. SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 7. SRI NARYANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 8. SRI N.SRINIVAS S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 9. SRI N.HARISH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 10. SRI N.JANARDHAN S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 11. SMT N.PADMA D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 12. SMT N.LAKSHMI D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENT Nos.6 TO 12 ARE R/AT NALLRAHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560066.
13. SRI D.PITCHI REDDY S/O SRI LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT K.UPPALAPADU KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT-500016.
14. SMT KANAKAMMA C/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NALLURUHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560066.
15. SRI K.GURUMURTHY S/O LATE KULAPPA MAJOR 16. K.NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE KULAPPA MAJOR 17. K.VENKATAPPA S/O LATE KULAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT RESPONDENT Nos.15 TO 17 ARE R/AT NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560066. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 PASSED BY IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.124/2011 ON THE APPLICATION U/O XVI RULE 1 OF CPC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2019 on I.A filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC in O.S.No.124/2011 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru ['Trial Court' for short].
2. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.124/2011 against the respondents for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC requesting the Trial Court to issue summons to the jurisdictional Tahasildar which came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Anand Beerannavar appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tahasildar had issued an endorsement which is marked as Ex.P-13 in the suit proceedings which depicts the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff. Since this piece of evidence being given by the Tahasildar, the Authority is required to be examined as a witness to prove the same. The Trial Court without going through the records has blindly rejected the application.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application. The documents issued by the Tahasildar in the capacity of functioning as a Quasi Judicial Authority requires to be proved by the petitioner with reference to the material available on record. Summoning such a Quasi Judicial Authority as a witness to each and every proceeding before the Court would consume the precious time of the Authority discharging public duty. The public time would suffer.
6. Hence, the reason assigned by the Trial Court that the concerned Tahasildar is head of the Taluk having day-to-day business and functions which are required to be attended to, is in accordance with law. The relevancy of summoning such a witness in the present case not being established, the application requires to be rejected. The order impugned cannot be held to be unsustainable.
Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.