Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Vasantharao Sanndevappa Galgali - Appellant
Versus
Nagappa Devappa @ Sannadevappa Hosatti - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 106419 of 2018
Decided On : 01-06-2020
Sharad Malgound Patil, Advocate, P.V. Gunjal, Advocate
The discretionary nature of the power to secure records from other courts under Order XIII Rule 10(1) of CPC and the requirement for careful examination of the necessity of such records in deciding the case.
Headnote:
FSL Report - Land Dispute - Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC - Papanna and others V/s. H.Dodde Gowda and others, (1987) 2 KarLJ 223
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 questioning the order passed in O.S.No.218/2011, on I.A.No.26 filed under Order under 13 Rule 10 of CPC by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit was filed for declaration and perpetual injunction by the plaintiffs, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants in securing a Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 06.06.2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FSL report produced in the criminal case was not necessary for deciding the civil case, as the disputed issue was the contents of the GPA, not the signatures. The court also cited the case of Papanna and others V/s. H.Dodde Gowda and others, (1987) 2 KarLJ 223, which emphasized the discretionary nature of the power to secure records from other courts under Order XIII Rule 10(1) of CPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FSL report was necessary for deciding the case, considering the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in securing the GPA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FSL report was not necessary as the disputed issue was the contents of the GPA, not the signatures. The court also emphasized the discretionary nature of the power to secure records from other courts, as highlighted in the case of Papanna and others V/s. H.Dodde Gowda and others, (1987) 2 KarLJ 223.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the order passed in O.S.No.218/2011, on I.A.No.26 filed under Order under 13 Rule 10 of CPC by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak did not suffer any illegality and infirmity.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 questioning the order passed in O.S.No.218/2011, on I.A.No.26 filed under Order under 13 Rule 10 of CPC by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak
2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in O.S.No.218/2011 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have specifically contended in the plaint that the suit lands were tenanted lands. The ancestors of plaintiffs were cultivating the suit lands as tenants. After coming into force of the Land Reforms Act 1974, one Siddavva on behalf of her minor son Maruti filed an application before the land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right. The Tribunal after due enquiry has conferred occupancy right to the family of respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs. It is specific case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs that they are the owners and cultivators of all the petition lands.
4. The respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint that there is no partition by metes and bounds in the suit lands till today. Cause of action to file the suit arose when defendant Nos.1 and 2 taking undue advantages of the illiteracy of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs concocted false GPA dated 06.06.2008.
5. On receipt of summons, the present petitioner contested the suit and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.
6. Based on the rival contentions, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have lead in evidence. The petitioner in support of his contention has commenced with the evidence and at this stage, petitioner has come up with the application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC requesting the Court to secure the original FSL and hand writing finger print expert report pertaining to GPA dated 06.06.2008 executed by respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs which is a part of record in CC No. 694/2011.
7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed objections to the applications.
8. The trial Court after examining the material on record has proceeded to reject the application by holding that if the FSL report is submitted before the Prl. JMFC, Gokak, then there would be no impediment for the petitioner to obtain certified copy of the same even though it is unexhibited document. The trial Court was of the view that the petitioner can secure certified copy of the said record and no purpose will be served in calling for the said record. The trial Court was also of the view that if the original documents is sought to be secured that would protract the hearing of the suit and would also hamper the progress of the criminal case. On this set of grounds, the trial Court has proceeded to reject the application.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued and would submit that respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have specifically alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence against the present petitioner in securing the alleged GPA dated 06.06.2008 and in this context the petitioners are entitled to lead evidence by relying on the FSL report.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the reasons assigned by the Court below and would contend that the signatures on the alleged GPA are not disputed only the contents of GPA are disputed. FSL report which was placed on record in the criminal proceedings would only indicate who has signed the documents and who has affixed LTM. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs have not disputed the signatures, but are seriously disputing the contents of GPA.
11. The respondents have specifically averred in para 3 of the plaint, which is culled out for the better understanding:
" Believing his words the plaintiffs have executed the alleged Power of attorney authorizing the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to make correction of revenue records only nothing else. Neither the deft. Nos.1 and 2 nor Notary read over contents of the alleged power of attorne
