Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOS.2204/2017 & 6527/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ANANTH N GHOLBA
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
GHOLBA PRADEEP
GHOLBA PRADEEP
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. VENKATESH GHOLBA,
#3132-33, KHADE BAZAR,
BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVATHI RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. PRAKASH FOAM & ACCESSORIES BY ITS PROP: VIKRAM KUMAR GULECHA, #101-5, GRACE CORNER, LALBAGH FORT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 004
...RESPONDENT
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2281/2016 UNDER ANNEXURE-H DTD. 7.1.2017 ALLOW I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.2281/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE
XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH- 33) UNDER ANNEXURE-F DTD.17.12.2016.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard Sri. Avathi Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Perused the records.
Petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No.2281/2016 is before this Court assailing the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 whereunder application filed by petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC to direct the plaintiff to supply detailed list of documents and application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for permission to produce additional documents, which has been dismissed and allowed respectively.
Perusal of the records would disclose that respondent/plaintiff has instituted the suit O.S.No.2281/2016 against petitioner/defendant for
recovery of Rs.10,75,188/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
Defendant on service of suit summons has entered appearance, filed the written statement and has denied the averments made in the plaint. During the pendency of proceedings an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC came to be filed by plaintiff seeking permission to produce office copies of invoices 38 in number, income-tax returns and original lorry receipts (31 numbers) contending interalia in the affidavit supporting application that at the time filing of suit those documents were not in its possession and recently it was framed. Said cause shown by the plaintiff came to be accepted by trial Court by impugned order and as such, it has allowed the application. During the pendency of said application defendant filed I.A.No.2 for a direction to the plaintiff to supply copies of those documents, which plaintiff intended to produce. However, said application came to be dismissed on the
ground that if there is any grievance, defendant would have right to object marking of those documents.
Cause for production of documents at a later stage will have to be considered in the background of there being any delay in filing the said documents and if so? whether it is bonafide or not;
It is the contention of Sri. Avathi Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that trial Court could not have dismissed the application filed by defendant without directing the respondent/plaintiff to furnish detailed list of particulars of those documents, which were sought to be produced by plaintiff and non-furnishing of copies to defendant is violation of Rule 14 of Order VII CPC and as such, there has been procedural lapse. Hence, he prays for impugned order being set aside.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and on perusal of records it would disclose that under I.A.No.2 two prayers had been
sought for. Under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, when two distinct prayers are sought for in an application Court can call upon such applicant to restrict his/her prayer to any one and then proceed to adjudicate the prayer, for which applicant intends to proceed with. However, this exercise had not been undertaken by the trial Court and it has adjudicated the application on merits and found that contention of defendant is erroneous. Said reasoning adopted by the trial Court is just and proper, inasmuch as, suit in question having been filed for recovery of money based on the documents, which plaintiff had proposed to place reliance as indicated in I.A.No.1, copies of said documents is not required to be furnished by plaintiff only list is to be furnished. The rigour and tenor of Rule 14 mandates list of such documents is to be furnished to opposite party. Perusal of the interlocutory application filed by plaintiff before trial Court – Annexure-C would disclose that list of documents has been indicated therein. As such plaintiff cannot be called upon to specify the details of each invoice and as
rightly observed by the trial Court defendant would have the benefit of cross examining the plaintiff and also object to marking of said documents, if said documents are tendered in evidence. That apart defendant can obtain certified copies of those documents also. There is no other tenable ground urged for said documents being taken on record.
In that view of the matter, the orders passed by trial Court rejecting I.A.No.1 and allowing of I.A.No.2 cannot be found fault with. Hence, writ petitions stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE