Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT PETITION NO.57819/2015 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.58275/2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.V.KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE GUTTIGEPPA
R/AT NO.312, 3RD FLOOR
DIVYA MSR GATEWAY
GOKULA, BENGALURU-560054
SMT.K.ARCHANA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O R.NATARAJ
R/AT “SHIVACHETANA”
3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU
560094
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.G.V.SHASHI KUMAR, Adv)
AND:
SRI.M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE M.S.RAMAIAH
R/O SRI LAKSHMIVENKATESWARA NILAYA
NO.9, BETHAL STREET, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT
KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-43
SRI.M.S.RAJARAM
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
R/O SRI LAKSHMIVENKATESWARA NILAYA
NO.9, BETHAL STREET, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT
KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-43 ….RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8313/2011 FROM THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that the application filed by defendant No.2 summoning income tax authorities
3 to produce the income tax returns and also another application directing the plaintiff to produce the said documents were rejected. Hence, counsel submitted that these documents were having bearing on the disposal of the main suit itself. It is also his submission that the trial court at one breath observed that the relevancy of the said documents will be considered, but on the other hand, the applications were rejected calling for the said documents.
I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition. The order passed by the trial court on the application. Looking to the observations made by the trial court while disposing of the said application, I do not find any illegality in the said order. No valid and legal grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*