Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.16365/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1.
MRS RAJANI GIRISH
W/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2.
MS DURGA GIRISH
D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
3.
MS GAYATHRI GIRISH
D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4.
MS DEVI GIRISHI
D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 316 BHAGWATI BLOCK
VIJAYASRI ELIXIR
BOREWELL ROAD
NALLURAHALLI
WHITEFIEDL
BENGALURU-560066.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1.
MR P RAMAKRISHNAN
2
S/O LATE K R NAIR
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
(REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
MRS RADHA RAMAKRISHNAN THE
2ND DEFENDANT HEREIN IS
APPOINTED AS HIS GUARDAIN
UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 1987).
2.
MRS RADHA RAMAKRISHNAN
W/O MR P RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
DEFENDANTS 1 & 2
R/A NO.1, HALL ROAD
RICHARDS TOWN
BENGALURU-560005.
3.
MR PRAVEEN RAMAKRISHNAN
S/O P RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SESAME TECHNOLOGIES(B)
BLOCK C NO.C7-1, IST FLOOR
BANGUNAN LAJIM AND
ANAK-ANAK KG KIARONG, BE1318
NEGARA BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
O/F(673)2455811.
4.
MRS. SREELAKSHMI
W/O PRADEEP NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A B-502, HIND APARTMENTS
SECTOR 5, PLOT NO.12
DWARAKA
NEW DELHI-110075.
5.
MS SHRUTHI PRAVEEN
D/O PRAVEEN RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A G-16, BHAGWATHI BLOCK
3
VIJAYASRI ELIXIR, NALLURAHALLI
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066.
6.
MS SMRITHI PRAVEEN
D/O PRAVEEN RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A NO.1, HALL ROAD
RICHARDS TOWN
BENGALURU-560005.
7.
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
14, YOLEE MALL
POTTERY ROAD
RICHARDS TOWN
BENGALURU-560005
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
8.
THE CANARA BANK
NO.98/1-2, WHEELER ROAD EXTN
COOKE TOWN
D COSTA SQUARE BRANCH
BENGALURU-560005
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
9.
THE POSTMASTER
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST OFFICE
BENGALURU-560084.
... RESPONDENTS
( BY MS. GEETHA MENON, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R1, R3 TO R9 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 23.08.2022
SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE 64TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65), BENGALURU ON IA NO.12 VIDE ANNX-K
IN O.S.NO.4819/2020, AND DISMISS THE SAME.
4
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
This
petition
is
by
the
plaintiffs
in
O.S.No.4819/2020 on the file of the LXIV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 8the
civil Court9). The petitioners have impugned the civil
Court9s order dated 31.3.2022, and the civil Court by
this order has allowed the second respondent9s
application [IA No.12] under Order XI Rules 2 and 4
read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908
[CPC] calling upon the petitioners to furnish the
particulars as mentioned in the application.
2.
The petitioners have filed their suit in
O.S.No.4819/2020 for partition of the different assets
that are mentioned in the schedules appended to the
plaint contending that these assets are joint family
properties and they as class-1 legal heirs of the
5
deceased Sri. Girish Ramakrishnan would be entitled to
a share in these assets. The second respondent, along
with her husband [first respondent], has filed a joint
Written Statement denying the assertion that the assets
mentioned in the plaint are joint family properties and
also contending that the second respondent, as a class-
1
legal
heir
of
her
deceased
son,
Sri
Girish
Ramakrishnan, would be entitled for 1/5th share in the
assets left behind by him. The second respondent has
also contended that the petitioners have deliberately
kept her away from her lawful share in his estate and
she reserves right to make a claim for her share in the
assets
left
behind
by
the
deceased
Sri.
Girish
Ramakrishnan upon getting such details of such estate.
In consonance, the second respondent has reserved
right to make a counter claim.
3.
Before
Issues
are
framed,
the
second
respondent has filed the subject application under
6
Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC read with Order 14 of CPC for
production of details of the [a] bank accounts of late Sri.
Girish Ramakrishnan, [b] immovable properties held by
him in Bengaluru or other places, [c] bank accounts
held by the petitioners either individually or jointly or in
joint with late Sri. Girish Ramakrishnan from 2004
until his demise, [d] Late Girish Ramakrishnan's IT
returns as also the first petitioner9s IT returns, [e] late
Sri. Girish Ramakrishnan's investments in stocks and
shares including mutual funds and [f] the compensation
received under the Motor Vehicles Act1.
4.
The civil Court has allowed the subject
application in the premise that these details must be
furnished in view of the settled position that a suit for
partial partition would not be maintainable unless all
the properties that have to be partitioned are part of the
pleadings. The civil Court has also opined that if the
1 It is undisputed that Late Girish Ramakrishnan has died in a
road accident.
7
details/documents as claimed are furnished, the
petitioners would not be put to any hardship.
5.
Upon hearing Sri Ashok B.Patil , the learned
counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Geetha Menon, the
learned counsel for the second respondent, this Court
has framed question, which is essentially as mentioned
below, for consideration. The learned counsels are
heard further on such question.
"Whether a defendant, who proposes to file a
counter claim, could have recourse to the
provisions of Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908, and seek discovery, or
production of documents, to substantiate the
cause for the counter claim as against the
substantiating a defence or vindication of a
Counter claim which is on record."
6.
It would suffice for this Court to record that
both the learned counsels rely upon the decision of the
Hon9ble Supreme Court in Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri
8
R.P.Kapur2 and significantly, both rely upon paragraph
9 which reads as under:
"Nor do we think that the High Court was
right in holding that the documents ordered to
be discovered were not relevant to the
inquiry.
The
documents
sought
to
be
discovered
need
not
be
admissible
in
evidence in the enquiry or proceedings. It is
sufficient if the documents would be relevant
for the purpose of throwing light on the ma
