PRABHUDEVA S/O LINGABASAPPA CHURI vs. UMA W/O SIDDESHWAR CHURI

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.109792/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PRABHUDEVA S/O LINGABASAPPA CHURI 55 YEARS, OCC : DOCTOR, BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O : M.G. ROAD, HAVERI. - PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.) AND 1. UMA W/O SIDDESHWAR CHURI 53 YRS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : DESAI GALLI, OPPOSITE TO RAM TEMPLE, HAVERI. 2. SIDDESHWAR S/O LINGABASAPPA CHURI OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: DESAI GALLI, OPPOSITE TO RAM TEMPLE, HAVERI. 3. CHANNABASANAGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O : MRITYUNJAY NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI. - RESPONDENTS

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2015, PASSED ON IA.NO.5 IN OS.NO.190/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. Notice to be issued to the respondent is dispensed with as the court felt not necessary. 2. The plaintiff in OS No.190/2009 has made an application under Order XVI Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking summoning of four witnesses on his side and for production of document by them. The said application was contested by the other side and the trial Court has dismissed the said IA No.5 on cost of Rs.1,000/- vide order dated 23.6.2015 which is called in question before this Court. 3. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application. In the application, it is simply stated that

3 he require certain documents which are noted in the application, but he has not specifically stated as to how those documents are relevant for the purpose of proving the case. The documents which are sought for, are also in omnibus in nature. Virtually, the witnesses are called upon to produce almost all the documents or records pertaining to M/s. Sharada Textiles, Manager & Proprietor of Dwaraka Hotel and also the documents pertaining to KSFC Department and the properties purchased by one Mahabaleshwar Linganagouda Patil, from 1.1.1998 and all the documents pertaining to the returns submitted to the Income Tax Department and copy of the GPA and also the documents pertaining to Channabasavanagouda Basavanagouda from 1.1.1998 and the returns pertaining to M/s. Sharada Textiles, without mentioning the details, such application has been made. Even in the affidavit also, nothing has been stated as to why he require those inumerable huge

4 documents and how they are relevant to the case is not explained in the affidavit. The trial Court has also made an observation that if at all the plaintiff intended to produce or sought for production of document from the witnesses, he ought to have filed application before the proper authorities seeking necessary copies of the documents, but no proof has been given before the court whether he has made such efforts to secure those documents. The trial Court also observed that if the application is allowed by the court below, it will definitely become a burden to the banking authorities and other Government Officers for providing those documents from 1998 to 2015 as the documents sought for are so inumerable and ambiguous in nature. Further added to that, the court has also mentioned that though the suit was filed in the year 2009 and issues were framed in the year 2010, the plaintiff has not made any efforts to enter into the witness box to

5 lead evidence and to explain how those documents are required and from the year 1998, till the filing of the suit or even after filing of the suit upto 2015, what efforts have been made to secure these documents which are sought to be produced before the court under Order XVI Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, considering all the above said facts and circumstances, the court has rejected the application rightly and there is no need for this court to interfere with such an order, as the plaintiff has not enter into the witness box and explained the relevancy of those documents. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE PL*