SHIVANNA Vs. RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.