P. GOKUL Vs. NAVEEN CHANDRA M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in OS No. 13/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura. They being aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2012 made on I.A. No. 9 in the said suit have filed this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed a suit in OS No. 13/2011 seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.8.2009 in respect of suit schedule property. In the said suit, petitioners, who are defendants, filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also contended that, apart from the registered agreement of sale, there is another agreement of sale dated 10.8.2009 between the petitioners and respondent. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 17,90,000/ -. The plaintiff has not produced the said document. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issue. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 1. During the course of defendants' evidence, they filed I.A. No. 9 under Order 8 Rule 1(a)(3) C.P.C. for production of documents. In the application, it was contended that the original document was with the plaintiff and he has retained only xerox copy with the original signature. It was contended that the document was misplaced in the office of the Advocate. Subsequently, the document was traced and hence, he could not produce the same along with the written statement and sought for production of document. However, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendants have filed this writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Suneel S. Narayan, learned Advocate appearing for respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court contending that at the stage of evidence of the defendants, the said document cannot be produced and marked and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.