Shivanna vs Ramegowda

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioner is the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 10-09-2012 and the order dated 03-10-2012 made in O.S. No. 96/2007 rejecting the applications filed by plaintiff under Order XI Rule 16 and Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC, has filed these petitions.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for declaration, declaring the sale deed dated 4-3-2003 registered on 9-8-2003 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagamangala is a created one and also for cancellation of the said sale deed as null and void. In the said suit, an application was filed under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC seeking for a direction to the defendant to produce the sale deed dated 9-8-2003 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The defendant filed objections to the said application and contended that the original document has been produced in R.A. No. 32/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagamangala, which is pending consideration and he is not in a position to produce the same. In view of the said submission, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC by its order dated 10.09.2012. In view of dismissal of the said application, the plaintiff filed one more application I.A. No. 10 under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC calling for the sale deed dated 4-3-2003 registered on 09.08.2003 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of Ramegowda in R.A. No. 32/2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nagamangala. The said application was also objected by the defendant. The Trial Court, after considering the matter in detail dismissed the said application by its order dated 3-10-2012. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the plaintiff filed these two writ petitions.

Sri. Roopesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. He contends that he has not executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant. However, pursuant to the direction of the District Registrar, the Sub-Registrar, Nagamangala, registered the sale deed and that is not binding on the plaintiff. The said sale deed has not been produced by the defendant in spite of the applications filed. The Trial Court misunderstood and misread the scope of Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC and sought for setting aside the same.

On the other hand, Sri. Prakash T Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court and contended that it is for the petitioner to prove his case by leading evidence and he cannot call upon the defendant to produce the documents. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail has passed the order impugned and the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant documents.

In the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order XI Rule 16 of CPC calling upon the defendant to produce the sale deed said to have been executed on 4-3-2003 and registered on 9-8-2003. The defendant filed objections to the said application stating that the said document has already been produced in R.A. No. 32/2008 and the same is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nagamangala. In view of that, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 10/2012 was filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC calling for the records in R.A. No. 32/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagamangala.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has not executed any sale deed on 9-8-2003 and the said document is a created one. However, it is for the petitioner to prove the same by leading evidence and by producing necessary documents. He cannot call upon the defendant to produce some documents to prove his case. The petitioner has to stand on his own footing instead of calling for documents from various Corners. The Trial Court taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, rejected both the applications filed by the petitioner. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the said order. The petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner to prove his case by producing necessary evidence.