AT

ANNX-A

DATED

3.7.2023

PASSED

BY THE

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI DISMISSING

IA.NO.30

FILED

UNDER

SECTION

151

OF

CPC

IN

OS.NO.168/2010 AND ETC.,

- 4 -

THIS

PETITION,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The

petitioners-defendants

in

OS.No.168/2010

are

before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

challenging order dated 03.07.2023 passed on I.A-30 filed

under Section 151 CPC on the file of the Principal Civil Judge

and JMFC, Channagiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri S.N.Sameer for the

petitioners and perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

defendants-petitioners filed application under Section 151 of

CPC seeking a direction against the ADLR, Channagiri to

produce documents pages from 1 to 398 which are in their

custody. The said application was filed at the stage of cross-

examination of DW.1. Learned counsel would submit that at an

earlier point of time, petitioners were before this Court in Writ

Petition No.46828/2019 challenging the rejection of petitioners

request to summon the Tahsildar to depose on their behalf. The

- 5 -

said Writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners

to seek appropriate order from the Trial Court.

4. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed

application under Section 151 of CPC to seek a direction to

ADLR, Channagiri to produce documents pages from 1 to 398.

In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that

the petitioners filed application under RTI, but the copies of the

documents are not made available. As such, he was

constrained to file application seeking direction to produce

documents. Further he submits that those documents are

necessary for proper adjudication of lis between the parties.

5. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiffs are

the owners of A and B schedule properties and for possession

of B schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of

evidence of defendants i.e. petitioners herein. Application i.e.

I.A.30 is filed under Section 151 of CPC for a direction to the

ADLR, Channagiri to produce documents pages from 1 to 398

which are in the custody of the said office. On perusal of the

application, it is seen that description of the documents are not

stated in the application and the affidavit and application would

- 6 -

not disclose the relevancy or purpose for which those

documents would be necessary.

6. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is clear that

the petitioners had earlier filed I.A-22 under Order VII Rule 1

CPC and in pursuant to the order on the said application, the

ADLR and DDLR produced as many as 1697 pages at the

instance of petitioners-defendants.

7. From the records, it is seen that petitioners-

defendants are filing applications one after the other to protract

the proceedings. The application would not describe the

documents which ought to be produced by the ADLR and

application and affidavit would not disclose the relevancy of the

documents. If the description of the documents are not

mentioned, the authorities would not be in a position to

produce the documents. The Trial Court, in the course of

impugned order, has also observed that the application is being

filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings, without

any sufficient cause and so also, reasoning the relevancy of

those documents.

- 7 -

8. There is no error in the said findings. Thus, I am of

the view that no ground is made out to interfere with impugned

order.

For the reasons recorded above and accepting the

reasons assigned by the trial Court, writ petition stands

dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondents-

plaintiffs before the trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MKM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

CT: BHK