Court's discretion in procedural matters must be exercised judiciously, ensuring fair hearing to all parties.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Shri A.N. Gangadharaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Naga Reddy V., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner - defendant No.4 is before this Court in the subject petition calling in question an order dated 12.02.2025, which rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking a direction at the hands of Tahsildar to produce the entire land tribunal record pertaining to LRF case No.924/75-76. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that the present defendant was not present on 29.01.2025. The orders passed on the said application are as follows:

"O.S.161/2019 Dw1 absent. Counsel for Defendant No. 4 filed IA u/o 17 rule 1 of cpc seeking for adjournment of above case since there is marriage of Defendart No. 4 sisters daughter. Perused In the interest of justice. Above application is allowed with further cost of Rs.500/-.

Call on by 06.02.2025.

Dw1 absent. Counsel for Defendant No. 4 submitted that Dw1 has not come to the court.

Defendant No.4 Counsel filed IA u/o 16 rule 6 of cpc seeking direction to the Tahsildar to produce the entire land tribunal record pertaining to LRF Case No.924/75-76 between Yallappa reddy V/s Y Shivappa.

Counsel for Defendant No. 4 submitted that they have applied for certified copy of the same before tahsildar but they have not given copy of the same. However Defendant No. 4 Counsel not produce any endorsement by the Tahsildar. Hence under these circumstances the above application filed by Defendant No.-4-w/o-16-rule 6 of cpc is dismissed as non maintainable.

Dw1 absent. Defendant No. 4 Counsel Prays time for when case called at 3.45pm. Defendant No. 4 Counsel submitted that Dw1 is not feeling well. However same submission was made in the morning session it is made only in the after noon session.

Further the Plaintiff Counsel is ready and waiting from morning to till this time to cross examine Dw1.

Hence the prayer for grant of some more time for appearance and cross examination of Dw1 is rejected and the further cross of Dw1 is taken as nil as Dw1 not tendered himself for cross examination even after granting suf time.

For arguments by 15.02.2025."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was not even heard in the matter. The case was kept by in the morning and re-called at 03.45 p.m. and counsel for defendant No.4 had submitted that he was not feeling well and the same mention had been made in the forenoon session. Notwithstanding this, the order is passed rejecting the application. The order is quoted hereinabove. It does not inspire confidence even to its semblance, as there is no application of mind on the part of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits it is discretionary on the part of the Court to pass the order. The discretion cannot be exercised in a cavalier manner, as exercised in the case at hand.

5. In that light, on this short ground that the order of the concerned Court suffers from non application of mind, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the concerned Court dated 12.02.2025 and direct the concerned Court to rehear the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 12.02.2025 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC stands quashed.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

Ordered accordingly.