@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B. Veerappa, J.@mdashThe petitioner/plaintiff No. 1, filed the above writ petition against the order dated 03.09.2014 on I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''CPC''), allowing the application in part, permitting the plaintiffs to produce document Nos. 10 and 11, and disallowing the remaining documents.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have filed O.S. No. 156/2008, for declaration and permanent injunction contending that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties.
3. The defendants filed written statement resisting the plaint averments and contended that they have purchased the properties in question and they are the owners of the properties in question through power of attorney holders and the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction is hopelessly barred by limitation, etc. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW-1, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(2) of CPC for permission to produce the documents shown in the accompanying affidavit along with a list stating that all the documents are relevant to resolve the dispute between the parties. The said application was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by filing objections, wherein they have specifically contended that the documents sought are in the nature of interlocutory orders and the documents are not at all relevant to decide the matter in controversy.
4. Considering the pleadings in the plaint, written statement, application for permission and objections filed by the defendants, the trial court passed the impugned order by partly allowing the application, permitting the plaintiffs to produce document Nos. 10 and 11 and rejected document Nos. 1 to 9. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
5. I have heard Smt. K.S. Hemalekha, learned counsel for the petitioner. She specifically contended that all the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs are relevant for the purpose of grant of declaration and injunction. The trial court erred in rejecting document Nos. 1 to 9 which are public documents and are very much relevant and necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties to the lis. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer for production of document Nos. 1 to 9 is erroneous and contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property, has to be decided independently, based on the relevant documents on record. The plaintiffs want to produce the following documents:
8. The trial court, on considering the entire material on record, has considered each of the documents and recorded its finding to the effect that there is no dispute with regard to the death of plaintiff Nos. 7 and 8 and therefore, the Death Certificates are not required and the certified copies of M.E. Nos. 7326, 7336 and 7391 pertain to Sy. No. 168 and the said survey number is not the subject matter of the suit and therefore, said documents are also not relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit.
9. Insofar as certified copies of the order in M.A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 2009 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the order passed in W.P. No. 60189/2010 C/w. W.P. No. 64987/2009 by this Court, are all relating to interlocutory applications and any findings given in the said orders will not be helpful to the plaintiffs to decide the case on merits. The said documents do not bear any relevancy in deciding the matter of the present case.
10. The trial court also recorded a finding that the copy of the legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgment, are produced in respect of the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 2 during the pendency of the suit. The said notice does not bear the signature of the plaintiffs or their advocate and there is no explanation in the application as to how the said documents are relevant for the case and therefore, the said documents also do not bear any relevance to decide the case on merits.
11. Accordingly, the trial court allowed only document Nos. 10 and 11 stating that the School Leaving Certificates of plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 are relevant for their age proof to ascertain whether they were minors at the time of sale transaction of the suit property. Considering the entire material on record, the trial court passed the impugned order.
12. It is not in dispute that the said application has been opposed by the defendants by filing objections. In the objections, it is stated by them that the proposed documents are not at all relevant to decide the matter in controversy. If the plaintiffs want to cross-examine any of the aspects to the defendants, they can do so in accordance with law and the trial court has to decide the suit independently, based on the merits of the case, without being influenced by the observations made by him on I.A.
Therefore, the trial court is requested to decide the case independently, on the merits of the case, without in any way being influenced by the observations made while passing orders on I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 14(2) of CPC.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
