IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

WRIT PETITION No.40692/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI A.S. RAJASHEKAR NAIDU S/O. LATE SRI SAMBAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.141, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, KENCHENAHALLI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: SRINATH A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. SRI A.C. PRABHAKAR NAIDU S/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, TRUSTEE AND SECRETARY, RAMAKRISHNA EDUCATION TRUST, SRINIVASPUR, KOAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.225/15, 2 ND MAIN, BYRAPPA BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 028.
• 2. SRI D. JANAKI RAMARAO S/O. D. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, TRUSTEE, RAMAKRISHNA EDUCATION TRUST, MARUTHINAGAR, SRINIVASPUR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135.
• 3. SMT. A.C. RUKMINIAMMA W/O. S. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, TRUSTEE,

RAMAKRISHNA EDUCATION TRUST, NO.118/1, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, YEDIYUR, JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 082.

• 4. SRI G.G. REDDAPPA S/O. GANGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TRUSTEE, RAMAKRISHNA EDUCATION TRUST, RAMAKRISHNA EXTENSION, SRINIVASPUR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135.
• 5. SRI M.V. NARASIMHA S/O. VENKATRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, TRUSTEE, RAMAKRISHNA EDUCATION TRUST, NO.59/A, RMV 2ND STAGE, 60 FEET ROAD, BHUPASANDRA NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 094.
• 6. DR. T. SAMBAMURTHY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs.,
• 6(a) A.S. RAMAMURTHY, S/O. LATE SAMBAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.695, RAMAKRISHNA EXTENSION, SRINIVASAPUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135, KARNATAKA STATE.
• 6(b) ANURADHA @ T. UMA, CLAIMS TO BE W/O. T. SAMBAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEAR,
• 6(c) KUM. T. THANUSHA CLAIMS TO BE D/O. T. SAMBAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.6(b) AND 6(c) ARE R/AT 2ND WARD, NO.242-4, ABBAIAHGARI VEEDHI, DADARI ROAD CROSS,

-: 3 :-

MADANAPALLE – 517 325.

7. SRI R.C. PAPI REDDY S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY, R/AT MADARANAKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYALPAD HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135. ... RESPONDENTS

*****

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2017 PASSED BY I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR IN O.S.84/2011 AT ANNEX-F AND DIRECT R-1 TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AS PRAYED FOR IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.31 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioner herein is defendant No.5(b) in O.S.No.84/2011, which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Kolar. That suit has been filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking a declaration that the suit schedule properties are trust properties of Sri Ramakrishna Education Trust and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. During the pendency of the suit, at the time of evidence of PW.1, an application under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a direction for production of resolution books, books of

accounts, registers pertaining to the said Trust from the custody of the plaintiff, from the date of commencement of Trust till the filing of the suit to be marked in evidence was sought. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

4. Petitioner's counsel contends that the object of seeking the said documents is in order to ensure that the said documents are not tampered with by the plaintiff. He submits that the resolution books and the accounts register pertaining to the institution must be summoned by the Court so that the said documents would not be tampered with and that a declaration has been obtained on such tampering of the records. The trial Court has reasoned that the Trust was established in the year 1985 and it would be futile to summon a "truckload" of documents and that summoning of registers without knowing the volume number and merely dumping the documents before Court being unmindful of relevancy in the suit is not proper. Therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the application.

5. I find that the trial court has been practical in its approach and has applied its mind to the application filed by the petitioner herein and that the dismissal of the application would not call for any interference in this writ petition. It is needless to observe that the suit is being one for declaration and consequential injunction, the burden of proving the facts so as to be entitled to the reliefs is on the respondent No.1/plaintiff and the petitioner's apprehension that the said documents must be summoned so as to ensure that there is no tampering of the documents by the plaintiff is only a misapprehension. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

S*