I IN THE HiGH cous CF KjINNMAKn AT BANLOHE DATED Tcii5 PlC 29TH LAY tF OCTOBER 2Oi BEFORE THE hoCbLo 14K. JtITICE V. L(1IiiA CICADA WR12 IETIPILN No,3&03/ 2 CO’ GZ—RaSJ BE LW. 1 N; M. Nerayafl nas, 5/0 late N. Kadarapa, major, aged 78 years, aesicing at “orna krtiCultULe 4 , 47th cross, 8th BloCk, Jayanagar, BaflyalOr€—S6O 070. FETkTIt’NER (By Sri O,Sbrinivasan for Sri jajanth N. pattanshetty. Ashok atil and V. 5LjnjVaS Raghavan for petrs.) A ND: 1. J. sazanjan, /o j,.?ousseau, Aged atout 54 years. 2, mt, j. hishree, o late J. udayan, Aged about 18 years Both residing at No.104, Adarsh Nest, LII Cross, C.X,ispout, Bangslore—560 078. ..HEhoN ENOC (By Sri Anant ?$ndgi anc t. ujla A. Hbogl for c/Ri pnis writ petItion filch rcz Artih5 26 e22 tf the constitution of India playing to quash the oboer of th court of the XXVII Additional City civil Juds Bangalore city, Dt,3,10, 2 00 2 in C,,i1/C02 at AnnK allowing IA IV and pen ittang the return of the original dociments to R anc 2 and clniss the aai a plico on & etc. This gi reti iCi coming on for prly.ng. ths day, the court made ‘he fol1oain;— t - - ------ S a Petitioner has flied this writ petition staking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the GCVIt Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalre City, in 0 3 K 11/02 at Annextre-K allowing A.h .IV and directing the Office to rat r c a z ginal doenaents to espondents 1 ano which were prod red by them and nas sought di missing the same urging vanoas grounds. r 2. The suit is filed by the petitioner for grant of judgment and decree of bare permanent injunction against the corporation not to make Ka n respect a he suit sched e perty in resp • nd2 e e ione e pp. rore 0 C.No.4 call o ginal d a ts produced y respondents and 2 in support of the.Lr ease in O.S.Nc’.i1’2C02. During the oendency of the said application, i.A.Nc.4 cat flied ‘y respondmts . and - S 1 S. -?‘C’ ...jtje: rzoe 2Ls 4 rr 3 requesting the trial Court to return the original documents produced by them in support of thai: case. The petinorer also filed application I.A.No.6 dated 7.6.2002 ader Order 13 Rule $ read with Se’. 5 CPC seeking to keep the said documents an sate stody ti 1 the disposal I he suit a pass si h ‘her orders rgi g various gro ds e t aal Court vi ‘iout onsiden g le app ata r AIo6filed by the petitioner allowed A No.4 t ed by respondents 1 and 2 pert a g ‘icr o take back the origasa documents produ e b t ten. Hence, this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order a passed or I.A.No.4. 3. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel Sn.C. B. Snnvasan appearing for the petitioner that the trial Court without considering and passing orders an the application I.A.No.6 filed oy the petitioner has considered the application fiieo ty respondents 1 ad 2 and though they hav ‘i out the vase for return of cä. aoc a aeoad to pass ‘mp’tged eaktg o der 4 the sac -equires to be ifleferred w h by allot ng vi t pa ion 4. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has sought to justify the impugned order placing strong reliance upon the provisions of order 13 Rule 9 oP contendirg that under the above said p ovis is t the CF if a pa ty 5 desiroua to rece ye the do rents produced by him i the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under Piie8, 15 entitled to receive back: the same and since th e is no der passe under or ci 13 Ia S L , he aa n tr ge has igr y eros po adgra crc ch tannot Pc interfer ed with P this C t in exercise of ts extraordInary and supervisory urisdiction, F re to e lo t ns ged r I cxa te mpugned dci to d out to wheti the imuugred croet it i: rt. F: the rI ;prtem. ‘ r tt.r s urged by the parties, it is necessary for this Court to extract order 13 Rule 9 CPC which reads thus: “Order 13 Rule 9 CPC: RETURN OF ADMITTED DOCUMENTS:- (1) Any pen n, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document _Lounde__jnder Rule derlinedbme) be entitled to receive back the same, 2 a) wtere the suit is one in whici an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and ) W er e s t is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisf’ed that the time for preferriig a appeal as elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal tas b en p eferred er the appeal has been disposed of: 6 It is an undisputed fact that as on the a • of p ss g o e order te aup ati n filed by the petitioner under order 3 Rule A CPC was penaing consideration by the trral Court, h a e i ada ub t v k o both te appia rations referred to supra fnr 4; consideration and pass appropriate orders. Though he has referred to the rival contentions urged by the parties an the findings recorded by tais Court in the c im nal petition No.1975/2002 filed by respondents 1 and 2, the C trial 3udge has not passed the order on the application I A.No.6 filed by the peti ionet. Without passing any order on that application, the trial Judge should not have exercised his power under Order 13 Rule 9 and passed the a ipugned order. The learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored the statutory provision under order 1s Rule S CPC as there was a request ade y the petia ner after i ng f t e application by respondents 1 and 2 for ‘spourding the documents for the reasons mentioned in the applicatj.on and t is toe d ty of he C art o ectast we’e’eei’oeri aadfllbd for the relief claimed in I.k.No.6. The impugned order passed oy the trial Court vithoat n,orgadp sg eo e nt ad application ‘s nt proper and therefore the impugnea zder as i.i iaated a law. )r. this qtondaon ft tai i. uee.. ê(b •1 ‘7 7 7. Apart from this, the learned trial Judge except adverting to he facts and the rival contentions in the impugned order, he has not recorded the reasons as to on what ground he has ordered for return of the original documents to the respondents I and 2 This iS also one more reason for ttis court to interfere with the impugned order ard quash the same r 5 For the reasons stated supra, this writ petition is allowed The impugned order is quashed. The matter s remitted back to the trial court with a direction to it for considering both the applications i,As,4 and 6 respectively and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of this orders Ii I the o d r s passed, th docimerts produced by re pord n s I n 2 s a I e kep in oafe custody Sd/s JUDGE