AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 262 wordsH.G. Ramesh. J.
Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person. This writ petition by the plaintiff is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.0.9.2011 (Annexure-N) passed by the trial Court in the suit in O.S.No. 3733/2008. By the impugned order, the trial Court, has dismissed I.A.V filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC to call for the original sale deed relating to the suit schedule property from the record in O.S.No. 5076/1999 from the Court of the 22nd City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
If is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the trial Court in dismissing the aforesaid application:
It is pertinent to note here that the above is for bare injunction. The scope of the suit is very limited. If at all if the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and interference of the defendant, that itself is sufficient to grant the decree in his favour. But, in the instant case, the plaintiff is seeking to call for the original document from 22nd Addl. City civil Judge, Bangalore, CCCH.No. 39, where in which the matter is pending. If at all the plaintiff intends to produce the same, he can very well obtain the certified copy of the said document and produce the same before this Court.
I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.