KABBALEGOWDA Vs. D KRISHNEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the defendants in 1st respondent's suit in O.S.No.190/1998 for declaration and partition, are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 11.06.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby, 1st respondent's application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) r/w section 151 of CPC, 1908, having been allowed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn), Kanakapura, the said respondent is permitted to produce as many as fourteen documents. The contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition, the notice to other respondents having been dispensed with.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the impugned order has the following errors apparent on its face: (a) there is absolutely no plea in respect of which the subject documents are permitted to be produced; (b) the trial judge wrongly treated respondents' reply/replication of the 1st respondent as his pleadings; (c) the subject documents, some of which are non-existent, having been generated after the filing of the suit, Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC does not avail for their production. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondents contends with equal vehemence that subject documents are relevant to the adjudication of the case; his replication/reply is itself a pleadings and therefore, the said documents can be produced by way of evidence; there is no legal prohibition for production of the documents that come into existence after the filing of the suit, subject to relevancy and admissibility; all aspects having been considered by the court below, the impugned order has been made which does not call for interference at the hands of this court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.