PETITIONERS. (BY SRI SUNIL S.RAO, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI B.S.NAGENDRA. S/O
LATE B.SESHAGIRI RAO. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. R/AT NO.1897, 7TH MAIN.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.6579/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K BHUJANGA RAO @ BHUJANGA SINCE DEAD BY L.Rs. 1. SMT. MEENAKSHI @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE BHUJANGA RAO AGED 67 YEARS 2. SMT. DAKSHAYINI D/O LATE BHUJANGA RAO AGED 45 YEARS R/AT. 15/1, 10TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA BANK, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 003. 3. SMT. VEENA D/O LATE BHUJANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT. ‘SNEHA NIALYA’ UPSTAIRS, 7TH CROSS, BAJAI KAPIKAD, NEAR GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BIJAI, MANAGALORE. 4. SMT. SUJATHA D/O LATE BHUJANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 842, SANJANA MURTHY MUTT LANE, NAGRATH PET CROSS, BANGALORE 560 002. 5. SMT. SHOBA D/O LATE BHUJANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.6, MADHUBN CHAWL, MAJAS ROAD, JOGESHWARI EAST MUMBAI 60. 6. SRI NAVEEN S/O BHUJANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. L.Rs. 1 TO 6 ARE RESINDING AT R/AT NO.109, PIPE LINE ROAD, 11TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 003.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUNIL S.RAO, ADV.)
AND: 1. SRI B.S.NAGENDRA S/O LATE B.SESHAGIRI RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.1897, 7TH MAIN ‘B’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010. 2. THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY FOR M/S. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY & ASSOSCIATES, FOR R1; SRI T.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2012 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.16475/2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WP. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER Petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.16475/2003 instituted by respondent No.1 for passing a judgment and decree of declaration and permanent injunction and for incidental reliefs.
Written statement was filed on 8.1.04.
Issues having been raised, plaintiff has adduced evidence. The suit is at the stage of defendants’ evidence.
An
application was filed by defendant No.1 under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to summon the Secretary, Malleswaram Tailoring Co-operative Society Ltd. to produce an alleged power of attorney dated 27.08.1991 said to have been executed by Sri B. Seshagiri Rao, in favour of the Society. Since statement of objections was filed on 10.01.12, upon consideration, learned Trial Judge has passed an order and has rejected the application, mainly on the ground that the power of attorney was a registered document and the certified copy can be obtained and produced in evidence. 2.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides. In my
opinion, the Trial Court has misdirected itself and has passed the impugned order. Keeping in view the material
4
assertions made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement & the scope of the suit, the application filed being
justified,
ought
to
have
been
allowed.
The
impugned order being irrational cannot be sustained. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Application filed by defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC on 6.1.12 stands allowed.
Upon payment of process fee by the defendant
No.1, the Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the Secretary, Malleswaram Co-operative Society, subject to the defendant furnishing the full and complete address on the next hearing date. If such address is furnished and steps are taken, the summons should follow to produce GPA registered as document No.880/1981-82.
If for any
reason, the summons are not served within the time allowed, there shall not be any re-issue of summons or a warrant. for production of the said document.
Sd/JUDGE sac*
