- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 532 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: V. SHAIK HIDAYATHULLA, S/O LATE WAJEER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.1489, 1ST CROSS, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHD USMAN SHAIKH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N C MAJUMDAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS' LAKSHMI MAJUMDAR W/O LATE N C MAJUMDAR R/AT NO.395/1, 5TH CROSS, ANNASANDRAPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU-560017. 2. SRI. NIRMOY MAJUMDAR S/O LATE N C MAJUMDAR R/AT NO.396/1, 5TH CROSS, ANNASANDRAPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU-560017. SRI MUMTAJ DEAD BY HER LRS SMT. AMEENA Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 3. D/O LATE SHAIK WAZEER AND LATE MUMTAJ NO.1489, 1ST CROSS, VIJINAPURA, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560016. 4. SRI. FAROOQ D/O LATE SHAIK WAZEER AND LATE MUMTAJ NO.1489, 1ST CROSS, VIJINAPURA, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560016. 5. SYED HAFIZABI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SYED KAREEM SAB, R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. 6. SYED AKBAR AGED ABOUT 50 YERAS S/O LATE SYED KAREEM SAB, R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. 7. SYED AKTHAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS IRSHAD BANU W/O LATE SYED AKTHAR R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. 8. SYED SAMEER S/O LATE SYED AKTHAR R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. 9. SYED NAZEER S/O LATE SYED AKTHAR R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. 10. SYED ASEEM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE NAZEER SAB R/AT ANNASANDRAPALYA, ISLAMPURA, HAL, BENGALURU-560017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HARSHITHA G.T., ADV. FOR SRI. G. S. PRASANNA KUMAR., ADV. FOR R1 & R2, V/O DATED NOTICE TO R3 TO R10 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-75) MAYO HALL AT BANGALORE, IN O.S.NO.25238/2011, ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION IN CHIEF, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by petitioner/defendant No.6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19-12-2024, passed in OS No.25238/2011, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6 for reopening, recalling the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 evidence of DW1 and for production of additional document came to be rejected. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the Compromise Decree dated 21-01-2008 passed in OS No.27147/2007 and consequential Sale Deed dated 19-07-2008 is not binding on the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs. 3. After service of summons, defendants have filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed 06 issues. On the basis of the issues, parties have adduced their evidence. After completion of the evidence of defendants, defendant No.6 has filed 03 applications, one under Section 151 of CPC for reopening the case for further evidence of DW1; an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling the evidence of DW1 and an application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for production of document. The said applications came to be dismissed on the ground that they have been filed at a belated stage and even - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 after giving sufficient opportunity, the documents have not been produced at the earliest date. 4. Be that as it may. Now the petitioner/defendant No.6 wants to produce the photographs and its negatives and newspaper to prove that he was in possession of the property. If the same are allowed, it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the writ petition requires to be allowed with certain conditions. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19-12-2024 passed by the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in OS No.25238/2011 is set aside. (iii) Applications filed under Section 151 CPC, under order 18 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 8 Rule 17 CPC are allowed, subject to condition that petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff, on the next date of hearing. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13830 WP No. 532 of 2025 (iv) Further, on the next date of hearing, the petitioner has to complete his examination of DW1 without taking any further adjournments. (v) All the pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40