What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that if the defendant failed to produce the documents, the petitioner could use Order 16 CPC to summon the Income Tax and Wealth Tax Departments. Since the petitioner had already utilized Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, the court found no reason to interfere.

The petitioner, a plaintiff in a partition suit, sought to produce wealth tax and income tax returns of an HUF. The trial court rejected his application to direct the defendant to produce these documents after evidence was closed.

What were the issues?

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for production of documents after evidence was closed, and if alternative remedies were available to the petitioner.

M V Ganesh Prasad vs A R Kamala | Karnataka High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH

Writ Petition No. 40060 of 2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

M V GANESH PRASAD S/O M.L. VASUDEVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMANE EXTN., CHIKMAGLUR, NOW R/AT SRI SHIVA SHAKTHI NILAYA, TILAKPARK ROAD, VIJAYPURA EXTENSION, CHIKMAGLUR – 577 101

... PETITIONER

[By Sri M V Ganesh Prasad – Party in person]

AND

A R KAMALA W/O SRI RAMA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.425/428 SRI KAMAL, NEAR IYENGAR MESS, DEVAMBA AGRAHARA, MYSORE.

SMT. T.R. SATYALAXMI W/O T.R. RAMAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 115/1, SHARADAPRASAD, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, NAGARAJA LAYOUT, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE – 560 018.

A.P. RUKMINI W/O SRI. A. PARANJOTHI,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.484, 1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAKSHA NILAYA, 11TH MAIN, 4th BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041.

SMT. B.N. GAYATHRI NATARAJ, W/O B.N. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.1, LAXMINIVAS, SHALIVAHANA ROAD, NAZARBAD EXTENSION, MYSORE.

GIRIJA SRINIVASAN W/O SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.12, RAJARAJESHWARI KRUPA, 33RD CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 4-T BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 041.

SMT. PARVATHAVARDHANA W/O M.L. VASUDEVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMANE EXTN., CHIKMAGALUR, NOW R/AT 007, GROUND FLOOR, GRUHALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, 90, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.

M.V. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O M.L. VASUDEVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.26/27, SIRIDHAM 3RD CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, WEST, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 011.

SRI. M.S. BHOJEGOWDA S/O SANNA SIDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNAGIRI ESTATE, DASARAHALLI, CHIKMAGALUR.

C.T. RAVI S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, M.L.A., BASAVANAHALLY

MAIN ROAD,

CHIKMAGALUR.

10.

M.A. SRIDHAR S/O M.K. ANANTHRAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.200, R.V. ROAD, KESHAVAKRUPALAYA, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.

... RESPONDENTS

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 MADE ON I.A. NO.23 IN O.S. 198/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR AS PER ANNEXURE – L AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION MADE AS PER I.A. NO.23 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.198/1997 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Chickmagalur, which suit is filed by them for partition and separate possession. After closing the evidence, an application came to be filed by him under Order 11 Rule14 CPC to direct the defendant-3 to produce the wealth tax and income tax returns filed on behalf of M/s M.L. Vasudeva Murthy and for which he is also one of the members of HUF. The said

application is rejected by the Trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

If the 3rd defendant has failed to produce these documents, it is always open for the petitioner to make use of Order 16 CPC, requesting the court to issue summons to Income Tax and Wealth Tax Department.

At this stage, Sri. M.V. Ganesh Prasad, who is appearing as party-in-person submits that he has already made use Order 16 Rule 6 CPC and an order has been granted in his favour by the court below.

In view of the same, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

M V GANESH PRASAD vs. A R KAMALA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments