Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 40385
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, J
SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O KRISHNA BHAT – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SHREEDEVI D/O KRISHNA BHAT – Respondent
WP 103762 of 2024
The necessity of documents for adjudication can override procedural delays in filing applications to summon witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 18 - Writ petition against rejection of applications for summoning defendants as witnesses - Applications filed belatedly after completion of evidence - Trial Court concluded plaintiffs did not make attempts to bring details before final arguments - Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court in rejecting the applications was erroneous. (Paras 3, 10)
(B) Evidence - Necessity of documents for adjudication - Plaintiffs required details from defendants to substantiate their case regarding the sale consideration of property - Trial Court's dismissal of applications based on delay was not justified given the necessity of the documents. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought to summon defendants No. 12 to 14 as witnesses after the Trial Court had already completed evidence and was set for arguments. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the grounds of delay and lack of prior attempts to obtain necessary documents.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the applications were wrongly dismissed and that the plaintiffs should be allowed to summon the defendants for necessary documents to substantiate their claims.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applications to summon witnesses were filed at an appropriate time and if the Trial Court's reasoning for rejection was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the necessity of the documents for adjudication outweighed the procedural delay in filing the applications, thus allowing the writ petition and quashing the Trial Court's order.
Result: Writ petition allowed; Trial Court directed to summon defendants No. 12 to 14 and dispose of the matter within three months.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The present writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the rejection of applications filed before the Trial Court for summoning the defendants No.12 to 14. The allegation made against the defendants in the sworn affidavit filed in support of the applications in I.A.Nos.XXXIV to XXXVI is that, defendants No.12 to 14 are required as court witnesses and they are not coming forward and contesting the matter. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that, the amount has been credited to the account of defendant No.1 and details of amount deposited in the name of the defendant No.1 is required and defendants No.12 to 14 are the right persons to give details as mentioned in the applications. The said applications are resisted by defendant No.1, contending that the applications are filed belatedly after the completion of evidence and when the case was posted for the arguments only with an intention to protract the proceedings.
3. The Trial Court, having considered the grounds urged in the applications as well as the objections filed by defendant No.1, came to the conclusion that, if the defendants No.12 to 14 are really holders of such documents, it should be known to the plaintiffs before filing of the suit. However, they did not make any attempt to bring these details before the matter reached for final arguments and no such effort was made, instead the plaintiffs awaited till the end of entire proceedings and come up with the present applications. The Trial Court also gone through the case records and applications are filed belatedly. Even when DW1 was summoned for further cross- examination, the plaintiffs took seven adjournments and not assisting the Court and hence rejected the applications.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that, earlier itself a notice was given under Order XII Rule 18 of CPC and the Trial Court rejected the same when such notice was given and also rejecting the applications came to the conclusion that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and at this stage production of documents as sought under Order XII Rule 18 of CPC is not at all required to decide the present case. When such notice was given and the same was rejected, now the Trial Court came to the conclusion that no attempt was made to get the details and the very reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel also vehemently contended that, the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that, based on the Power of Attorney the property was sold and only amount is shown as the government rate and not the actual market rate, in the bank account. All details of the amount which has received by the defendant No.1 is necessary to adjudicate the issue involved between the parties and the reason assigned by the Trial Court is erroneous.
5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that these applications are numbered as I.A.Nos.XXXIV to XXXVI and during the trial not made such any application and now the plaintiffs cannot summon the bank officials to produce those documents. They are the parties to the suit and there cannot be any order to direct them to produce the documents. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the matter was posted long back for arguments and not made any efforts and rightly rejected the same.
6. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also taking note of the grounds which have been urged in the applications, it is specifically contended that the details of amount what the defendant No.1 has received is available with defendants No.12 to 14 and also the details sought for in respect of defendant No.1 is concerned are necessary for adjudication of the case. On the other hand, it is the contention that th
