- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21120 W.P. No.3494/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3494/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. B.N. ASHA D/O LATE P. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.252, 1ST BLOCK 3RD CROSS, PEENYA 1ST STAGE PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH A, ADV.,) AND: SRI. KESHAVA RAO S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.252, (PORTION) FIRST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK 3RD CROSS, PEENYA 1ST STAGE PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI/OR ANY OTHER WRIT/DIRECTION/ORDER FOR QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 27) PASSED ON I.A.NO.31 IN O.S.NO.3831/2009, DATED 20.11.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.31 FILED BY THE PETITIONER & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21120 W.P. No.3494/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari/or any other writ/direction/order for quashing/setting aside the order passed by the Hon'ble VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-27) passed on I.A.No.31 in O.S.No.3831/2009, dated 20.11.2019 produced at Annexure-F by allowing the writ petition and consequently allow I.A.No.31 filed by the petitioner. b) Grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1, 6 and 15 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to summon the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk to produce voter list of the petitioner. The trial Court has incorrectly rejected the said application. However, summoning of the witness sought in the application is necessary. Hence, he seeks to allow the application. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21120 W.P. No.3494/2020 trial Court and submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. As the suit being for eviction, summoning of the Tahsildar and production of document in question would not arise. The parties to the proceedings are required to establish relationship of land lord and tenant. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent, and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3831/2009 and the said suit is for eviction of the defendant claiming that the defendant is the tenant in the suit schedule property. The trial Court considering the nature of the suit has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is required to prove the land lord & tenant relationship and summoning of Tahsildar has no bearing on deciding the suit. I do not find any error in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21120 W.P. No.3494/2020 the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0