B S SHUBHA vs. B N JAYAKUMAR

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION Nos.12509-12511 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: B.S.SHUBHA W/O B.N.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.M1/215 OFFICERS QUARTERS PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 302 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.AMRUTHESH C, ADVOCATE) AND: B.N.JAYAKUMAR S/O LATE B.NARASIMHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT HEMAVATHY RICE MILL BILIKERE, HASSAN ROAD HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 211 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI:S.V.ANGADI & BASAVARAJA H.T, ADVOCATES) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 26.3.2012 PASSED BY SR. CIVIL JUDGE, HOLENARASIPURA IN O.S.NO.223/2002 ON I.A.NO.13 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

- 2 - THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for decree to dissolve the partnership, to direct the defendant to place all accounts and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, he filed I.A.13 under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to reopen the case and summon the persons to produce the original partnership deed. I.A.14 was filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC to direct the defendant to produce the documents which will throw light on the dispute of the case and I.A.15 was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to amend application I.A.13 from partition deed to a partnership deed. By the impugned order, they were rejected. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

- 3 - 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. 4. On hearing both counsel’s and examining the impugned order, I do not find any error that calls for interference. The Trial Court was of the view that when the defendant has specifically denied the custody of the documents, the applications cannot be allowed; that the defendant is not the sole custodian of the documents, especially in view of the objections filed by the defendants themselves. Therefore, the defendant cannot be directed to produce the documents which are not in his custody. With these observations, the Trial Court rejected the applications. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if that were to be the case, then liberty may be granted to him to file fresh applications seeking production of all these documents from the concerned authority, namely, KSFC, Income Tax Department or otherwise. Under the circumstances, I’m of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Trial Court. Therefore, no interference is called for.

- 4 - Under the circumstances, the petition is liable to be rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file such applications as is necessary in order to procure the documents or otherwise from the concerned authorities. Petition stands disposed off with the said observations. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit is of the year 2002 and hence, early disposal is required. In view of the submissions made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not cause delay in the disposal of the suit. At the request of both the counsel, Trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE AHB