Writ Petition No. 14087 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14087 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAJAPPA S/O N. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SRI. NAVEEN S/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 6. SRI. SHIVA S/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 7. SRI. PRAKASH S/O N. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BALAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 …PETITIONERS HC-KAR KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI. AMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. THOTAPPA, S/O A.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. DODDA NARAYANAPPA, S/O A.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SRI. CHIKKA NARAYANASWAMY, S/O A.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT BYLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. 4. SRI. H.V. LINGESHWARAIAH, S/O LATE VEERASANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O D.V.G ROAD, NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE, 4TH CROSS, ADARSHANAGAR, MALUR TOWN, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 5. SRI. H.V. MAHARUDRAIAH S/O LATE VEERASANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 6. SRI. H.V. CHANDRASHKER S/O LATE VEERASANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR 7. SRI. H.V. RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE VEERASANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT HURALAGERE VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 8. SRI. VENKATESH GOWDA, MAJOR R/O NEHRU EXTENSION, MALUR TOWN, OR BANK STREET ROAD NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND MALUR TOWN. 9. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB OFFICE, OFFICE NO.1 39 SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 10. SMT. CHOWDAMMA, W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O BALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASHWINI G. RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R9; R1, R3 TO R8, R10 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.11.2020 MADE IN O.S.NO.212/2020 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR TO THE EXTENT OF NOT GRANTING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED DATED 17.7.1965 PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ISSUE CERTIFIED COPY AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayers: "i) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of certiorari, quashing the order AnnexureA dated 10/11/2020 made in O.S.No.212/2020 by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Malur, to the extent of not granting the certified copy of the original sale deed dated 17/7/1965 produced by the plaintiffs and direct the Trial court to issue certified copy as prayed for, in the interest of justice. ii) Grant such other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. " 2. Heard Sri. Amar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.212/2020. The said suit was filed by the Respondents for partition and other prayers. The Petitioners filed an application seeking certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.07.1965 which was produced by the Respondents along with the plaint and other documents. The trial court by the impugned order directed to issue certified - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR copies as prayed in the application except the sale deed dated 17.07.1965. 4. Learned counsel for Petitioner further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in refusing to give certified copies sought in the application. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of J.R.R. NAIDU vs. REGISTRAR, CITY CIVIL COURTS, reported in ILR 1992 KAR 2700. He further relies on the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of K RAMESH vs. SENIOR CIIVL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, in W.P.No.3088/2017(GM-CPC), disposed of on 17.02.2018, wherein he directed the concerned Court to issue certified copies to the parties therein. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ Petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR 6. Though the matter is listed in the Orders List, the Petitioner is not seeking any relief against the Respondents. Hence the matter is taken up for disposal. 7. The Respondents have filed O.S.No.212/2020 and the same is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Maluru. In the said suit, the Petitioners filed an application dated 04.11.2020 seeking for certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 17.07.1965 produced by the Respondents along with plaint. The trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 rejected the same. This Court in the case of J.R.R. NAIDU referred supra at Paragraph No.3 has held as under: 3. The trial Court rejected the application on the basis that the documents have not been admitted in evidence and therefore is not entitled to get the documents. The trial Court did not consider the question when the suit itself is based on a particular document whether it forms part of the suit or proceeding, but considered only a latter part of the Rules as the entitlement of the party to get copy of the document which has been admitted in the evidence. if a suit is based on any document and that document forms part of the suit documents and therefore of the record, party is entitled to such a document or not is the question. in that view of the matter, I think the petitioner is right in his submission and it is certainly open to him to get copy of such documents. The trial court has failed to consider the request of the petitioner and is directed to furnish copies sought for." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR 8. Another Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of RAMESH referred supra at Paragraph No.3 has observed as under: "3.The Presiding Officer in his administrative capacity has filed written statement stating that the Will was not marked and was kept in safe custody and further that the impleading application was not yet allowed. it is further submitted that the said Will is not a suit document. It is seen that a document even though not admitted in evidence, can still be furnished by way of certified copy to the parties before the Court. In the present case, the applicant in the certified copy has produced copy of the Will and that is the suit document. In so far as the impleading applicant is concerned, as the impleading applicant claims right to the Will executed by the plaintiff in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of J.RR.Naidu vs. Registrar, city Civil Courts reported in ILR 1992 KAR 2700 wherein it has clearly been pointed out that despite a document not being admitted in evidence if the said document forms part of the suit documents party is entitled to the get copy of such document, accordingly petitioner is entitled for the copies sought for. Rule 230 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of practice will not come in the way of such furnishing of copy of the party." 9. The aforesaid enunciation of law clearly indicate that the party is entitled to get the document which have been admitted in the evidence as well as the documents produced along with the plaint by considering Rule 230 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. In view of the same, I am of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20933 WP No. 14087 of 2020 HC-KAR considered view that even the documents which are not admitted in the evidence can still be furnished by way of certified copies by the concerned Court which are produced along with plaint. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 10.11.2020 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the application for certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.07.1965 and issue the same to the Petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK