Smt. Vasanthi S. Bangera and Smt. Sabitha S. Kalmady vs Smt. Jayanthi S.K. and Others

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—Petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S.No. 153/1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Udupi, are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 06.09.2012 passed on I.A.No. 24 filed in the above said suit at Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that at the stage of evidence of plaintiffs, plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 24 under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC seeking direction to produce documents as mentioned in the application, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the application. He further submits that the documents sought to be produced by the respective defendants are necessary for answering rival contentions and this Court by order dated 22.02.2012 made in W.P.Nos. 5639/2011, 5640/2011 granted leave to produce secondary evidence in relation to document No. 3 described in the application and before doing so, the plaintiffs were advised to file application for production of the documents.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He also submits that the respondents filed a petition in W.P.No. 820/2010 before this Court for early disposal of the suit and the writ petition was allowed on 01.07.2010 directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before 31.03.2011, but the petitioners are filing application after application with an intention to delay the disposal of the case. At the very outset, it must be mentioned that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC is vague. Further, they have not mentioned neither in the affidavit nor arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how those documents sought to be produced by the defendants are necessary for adjudication of the suit. It is pertinent to mention that the present petitioners have filed a suit in the year 1997 against the respondents for declaration that the registered partition deed dated 10.01.1997 entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence on the part of the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and is not binding on the plaintiffs and also sought for partition and separate possession of their shares and other relief''s. Keeping in view the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their case. It is submitted that the stage is for defendants to adduce the evidence. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

In the result, the writ petition fails and same is hereby rejected.