IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.13463 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. RAMAMURTHY

S/O LATE B. SHANKARA NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

R/AT NO.10/22, 4^TH MAIN

8^TH <B= CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR

BENGALURU 3 560 085.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

DR. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO AMILINENI

S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

R/AT 5601, WAGON WHEEL AVE ABILENE

TEXAS-79606, U.S.A

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER

N VENKATA RAMANA

S/O LATE N THIPPANNA

AGED 66 YEARS,

R/AT RAKETLA VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL

ANANTPUR DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH

2

AND ALSO AT

NO.143, 1^ST MAIN, 7^TH CROSS,

M S R NAGAR

BENGALURU-560 019.

2 .

J. M. CHANDRASHEKAR

S/O G MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/AT NO.303, 1^ST CROSS,

C T BED, THYAGARAJANAGAR

BENGALURU-560 028.

&.RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.D. ASWATHANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1

R-2 SERVED)

---------

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE IN O.S.NO.6950/2010

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IN REJECTING THE PRAYER

TO

MARK

THE

NOTORISED COPIES

OF GPA

AND

AFFIDAVIT AT ANNEXURE-F, G RESPECTIVELY, THEREBY

PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO GET THE SAME MARKED AS

EXHIBITS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

3

O R D E R

Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the order dated

15.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.6950/2010 by the

XXXIV

Additional

City

Civil

&

Sessions

Judge,

Bengaluru, wherein the Trial Court has declined to

mark the documents-Annexures F and G produced by

him, has filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

Respondent

No.1

filed

a

suit

in

O.S.No.6950/2010 for declaration of ownership and

injunction. Petitioner filed a written statement denying

the averments made in the suit. The Trial Court on

the basis of the pleadings framed the issues.

Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW1 and closed

his side.

4

Matter was set down for defendants9 evidence.

The petitioner was examined as DW2. During the

course

of

examination-in-chief,

defendant

No.1/petitioner has produced the xerox copies of the

notorised copy of the general power of attorney as

well as the affidavit.

Counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has raised

objection for marking the said documents. The Trial

Court after hearing the parties, passed an order

declining to grant permission to mark the said

documents. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Jeevan K, learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for

respondent No.1 .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the said documents are notorised true copies of

the originals and he submits that the said documents

5

are relevant for deciding the real controversy in

dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in

declining permission to mark the said documents.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ

petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 submits that the said documents are created for

the purpose of the suit. Hence, he submits that the

Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned

order.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Respondent No.1 filed the suit. The

petitioner filed written statement. The Trial Court

framed the issues. Respondent No.1 led evidence and

closed his side. The petitioner was examined as DW2.

6

During

the

course

of

examination-in-chief,

the

petitioner has produced notorised copy of the general

power of attorney as well as the affidavit. It is

cont