AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioners 1 & 2 are defendants No. 4 & 3(a) in O.S. No. 16707/2002. They have Sled this writ petition seeking a direction to the trial Court to appoint a translator and also for a further direction to permit the petitioner to mark certain documents.
On an earlier occasion, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No. 9720/2009 seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, to issue certified copies of certain documents which they intended to mark in their evidence. The said Writ petition has been disposed off on 09.04.2009. In paragraph 7 of the said order passed by this Court, it is observed that petitioners intended to rely upon the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977 which they were not diligent to secure all these years since 2002. It has been further ordered in the said writ petition that only to ensure that the proceedings were not unnecessarily protracted, this Court had issued in the earlier Writ Petitions bearing W.P. No. 9719/2009 and 9853-54/2009, a direction that within two weeks the petitioners shall complete their evidence and no further time will be granted to them. Despite the said condition, they again came up in W.P. No. 9720/2009 C/w. W.P.9864/2009 stating that certified copies of the documents were not supplied to them. When such a grievance was made. Counsel for the respondents submitted that they had no objection for producing the xerox copies of the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977. In that view of the matter, this Court permitted the petitioners to mark xerox copies of the documents subject to the condition that the petitioner produces the certified copies within the time to be fixed by the Trial Court. Observation was also made to the effect that the Registry, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore shall make necessary endeavours to issue the certified copies of the document applied by the petitioners as early as possible. It was also made very clear that no further opportunity will be given to the petitioners for production of any other documents or for any other evidence in the matter and that the parties shall co-operate with the court below in ensuring that the proceedings attain finality expeditiously.
The present writ petition is filed making two-fold grievance that (i) a translator was not appointed during the course of cross-examination of defendants by the Counsel for the plaintiffs; and (ii) two documents, namely copy of the complaint giver; to the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo-Hall Unit on 01.04.2009 and copy application filed seeking certified copies of the documents applied on 23.03.2009 were not permitted to be marked.
Placing reliance on Rule 66 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when a witness gives evidence in a language not understood by the Court, the Presiding Judge is authorised to employ an interpreter and therefore as the Counsel for the defendants did not know Tamil and as the Court also did not know Tamil, without appointing a Translator cross-examination could not have been proceeded with. He draws the attention of the Court to a memo filed before the Court requesting for appointment of a Translator. A copy of the memo is produced at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. The defendant, being a Tamilian claims that she does not know English properly. The witness sought for a Translator, but the Court allegedly refused to appoint a Translator. A memo is allegedly filed before the Court in this regard.
The Court below has passed an order as under, - "Memo filed for by 4th defendant for appointing a Translator for evidence of D.W.-4 - evidence already concluded. Hence memo rejected." In this background this writ petition is filed.
In the entire averments made in the Writ Petition, nothing is said as to whether any question asked to or answered by the petitioner has been wrongly recorded, nor is there any grievance made by the petitioners that in view of the Court being not conversant with the language in which the witness answered the questions, the version of the witness was not correctly recorded.
Rule 66 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice authorises the Court to avail the services of an Interpreter when a witness adduces evidence in a language not understood by the Court. This is not a case where the Court had not understood the evidence given by the witness and therefore the Court ought to have had the benefit of an Interpreter. There is also no grievance made by the petitioners that questions were asked to her in a language not known to her. She also further states that she was conversant with Tamil but was not fully conversant in English. The fact that her Counsel was not acquainted with Tamil language is no ground for requesting for appointment of an Interpreter. In the above circumstances, the attempt made by the petitioners to make such a request appears to be only to drag on the proceedings. This Court has made it clear that the defendants snail proceed with the evidence and co-operate with the court below in the expeditious disposal of the case. In fact, such a direction is already issued by this Court in the previous writ petitions as well.
If there is any genuine difficulty for the Counsel for the defendant in not understanding the language in which the defendant was answering, such a request ought to have been made earlier or for that matter he should have himself made arrangement to understand the language. This is not a case where the Court has failed to understand the answers given by the witness and therefore was handicapped in recording the evidence of D.W.-4. Hence, in such circumstances, the grievance made regarding non-appointment of a Translator or an Interpreter has no substance.
In so far as the grievance made regarding the alleged refusal of the court below to mark two documents referred to herein above, it is seen from the older passed in the previous writ petition that petitioner was permitted to mark the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977 the Ugh no certified copies were furnished and only xerox copies were produced. Those documents have been marked subject to production of certified copies. Even if the Court below has not permitted the petitioner to mark the complaint given to the Registrar on 01.04.2009 or the copy application given on 23.03.2009 seeking the certified copies, the same will not in any way affect the matter. In fact, it is only on that ground that despite making an application before the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and despite making necessary efforts to secure the certified copies of those documents in HRC and execution case the documents were not furnished to the petitioners herein, this Court permitted the petitioners to mark xerox copies of those documents though of course with the consent given by the other side. Therefore, question of separately marking the copy of the application filed seeking the certified copies of the documents or for that matter copy of the complaint filed to the Deputy Registrar in this regard does not arise. Here again, it is clear that the petitioners herein are trying to unnecessarily protract the matter and have come up with the3e assertions and demands that cannot he justified.
For the aforementioned reasons, this Writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.