Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.34838 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MR SIRAJ REHAMATHULLA AGED 62 YEARS SON OF REHAMATHULLA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #S-01 SECOND FLOOR, EASTERN COURT NO.24, COLES ROAD BANGALORE-560005
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.ARJUN REGO, ADV., FOR M/S REGO L.P.E.,)
AND:
MESSRS GOLD ENTERPRISES
A FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIPACT,1932 WITH ITS OFFICE AT
NO.79/1, 2ND CROSS
LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED HERIN BY ITS PARTNER
MR.MOHMED SHABBIR
MR MOHAMED SHABBIR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
SON OF HAJI ISMAIL SAIT
RESIDING AT “GOLD CARAT”
CLEVELAND ROAD, FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
2 3. MRS.NIKHAT SHABBIR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WIFE OF MOHAMED SHABBIR
RESIDING AT “GOLD CARAT”
CLEVELAND ROAD, FRASER TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
MESSRS SATTVA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED, (SATTVA GROUP)
A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR
SALARPURIA WINDSOR
#3 ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 042
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN
MR. BIJAY AGARWAL
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRI.M.G.S.KAMAL, ADV., FOR C/R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:13.08.2015 AT ANNEXURE-A HERETO PASSED ON THE INTERLOUCUTORY APPLICATION NO.13 FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN O.S.NO. 1202/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIMULTANEOUSLY GRANTING TO THE PETITIONER HIS COSTS, COUNSELS FEE AND SUCH FURTHER ORDER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit pending before the Court
3 below. I.A.No.12 filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC was allowed by the learned Trial Judge on 02.07.2015. I.A.No.13 was filed on 13.08.2015 by the plaintiff, under Rule 16 Rule 6 of CPC, to direct the Income Tax Commissioner to produce certified copies of the Income Tax return for the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 filed by the applicants / plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge, by perusing the application and the order passed on I.A.No.12 and being of the view that the Income Tax Office has sent all the returns of the plaintiffs, as sought in the application and as already marked in evidence, has passed an order of rejection by holding that there is no ground for issuing direction afresh to the Commissioner to produce the very same documents. It is the said order which has been assailed in this petition.
Para 13 of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.13 is relevant in the matter for consideration of
4 I.A.No.13 and passing orders thereon. Unfortunately, learned Trial Judge has not perused the said paragraph ie., while passing the impugned order. Without even giving an opportunity to the defendants to file their counter, I.A.No.13 has been rejected.
Having regard to the fact that there is non application of mind in passing of the impugned order, though learned counsel on both sides attempted to justify their respective contentions, I deem it just to quash the impugned order and direct the learned Trial Judge to reconsider I.A.No.13 in accordance with law.
In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Learned Trial Judge is directed to reconsider I.A.No.13 and pass orders on 29.08.2015. It is open to the defendants to file counter to I.A.No.13, on 29.08.2015, by serving a copy on the learned advocate for the petitioner ie., on 28.08.2015. Learned Trial Judge shall consider I.A.No.13 afresh and in the light of
5 the observations made supra and decide the same on 29.08.2015.
Sd/-
JUDGE