IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35832 OF 2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNITHA S NIKKAM W/O SUBASH NIKKAM, 79 YEARS, R/A #1222, SUBASH NAGAR SUKRAVARPET, PUNE-2.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER VARDA BAI, W/O JAI HIND RAO SINDHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS AND R/A BARANDUR VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK. ...PETITIONER (BY Smt.SUDHA.S.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RAMESH S NIKKAM S/O SRINIVAS NIKKAM AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A #8, KUDLEPATEL COMPLES SINHAGARH ROAD, OPPOSITE HOTEL ABIRUCHI, WADGAON BUD, PUNE – 411 051, MAHARASTRA STATE.
2. SMT. VASUNDHARA @ ANURADHA W/O USHAKANTHA S NIKKAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MILK DAIRY, SOMVARPET PUNE, MAHARASTRA. ...RESPONDENTS (Respondents are deemed to have been Served vide order dated 11.01.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN O.S.NO.318 OF 2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.8.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt.Sudha.S.N., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondents No.1 and 2 have refused to accept notice of the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid submission, respondents are deemed to have been served with the notice of these proceedings.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, by which application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for short) has been rejected.
4. Facts giving raise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are that, the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. Even before the issues were framed in the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code by which General Power of Attorney was sought to be placed on record. The trial court, considered the veracity of the aforesaid document and rejected the same.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records.
6. Admittedly, the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code was filed at the stage when issues in the suit were not framed. At the stage of production of the document, the trial court in not supposed to collect the genuineness of the document. The impugned order therefore suffers from error apparent on the face of the record as well as jurisdictional infirmity. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code is allowed. Since the civil suit is pending since the year 2008, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings in the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh