IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.6176-6177/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
THE TAMILNADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 350 PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE CHENNAI-8 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER CO-OPTEX REGIONAL OFFICE 138, GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-56004. (By Mr.SACHIN B.S. ADV.) AND:
HOTEL ROOPA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERD UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BALMATTA ROAD MANGALORE-575001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VINAYACHANDRA D. SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE DAMODARA R. SUVARNA R/AT. VISHNAVI SHIVAABHAG KADRI MANGALORE-2, D.K.
(By Mr. VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR Mr. S. ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or impugned order dated 2.2.2017 passed on I.A.No.VI and VII in O.S.No.121/2014 on the file I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore D.K. as per Annex-A and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Subbareddy, learned Senior counsel for Mr.S.Ismail Zabiulla, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court by which application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been allowed and the original agreement of lease has been taken on record by the Trial Court.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions are that the respondent has filed a suit for eviction. During the course of suit, by an order dated 06.09.2016, the Trial Court impounded the Xerox copy of the document. Thereupon, the respondent recovered the original document and approached the District Registrar on 26.08.2016. The District Registrar by order dated 22.09.2016 calculated the stamp duty and penalty on the document, which admittedly the respondent has paid. Thereafter, the respondent has field an application under Order VII Rule 14 for taking the aforesaid document on record. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the document was impounded by the Trial Court on 06.09.2016, the same could not have been impounded by the District Registrar on 22.09.2016. It is further submitted that the notarized copy of the agreement was impounded by the order dated 06.09.2016. Therefore, the same document has to be tendered in evidence. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the agreement for lease, which has been produced by way of an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the suit. The issue whether or not the same can be tendered in evidence is yet to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has allowed the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code and has taken the agreement for lease produced by respondent on record. The order passed by the Trial Court does neither suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise all objections to admissibility of the aforesaid document as and when the same is tendered in evidence.
Taking into account the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and is pending consideration before the Trial Court, the Trial Court to make an endeavor to dispose of the proceedings in the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS