Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15992 (KAR)

SRI NYATHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT MUNIYAMMA v. SMT CHANNAMMA

WP/3601/2025 · 2025-02-07

H T Narendra Prasad

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5701 WP No. 3601 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3601 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NYATHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT MUNIYAMMA @CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE NYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ANAKANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT-562101. 3. SRI.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. SRI.GANGARAJU S/O LATE NYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE NYATHAPPA W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PETITIONER 1,3 TO 5 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURALI M, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5701 WP No. 3601 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT CHANNAMMA W/O G.L.SHIVANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY S/O G.K.LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SRI G L KRISHNAPPA S/O G.K.LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SRI. G.L. KONDAPPA S/O G.K.LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI. G.L. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O G.K.LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHOKKANHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT -562104. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 52/2016 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, AT GUDIBANDE, CHIKKABALLAPURA,QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED: 10.01.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 52/2016 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC(IA NO.20) AND APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF CPC (IA NO. 21) AND APPLICATION U/O 7 RULE 14 OF CPC (IA NO. 22) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5701 WP No. 3601 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibandi on I.A.Nos.20 to 22 in O.S.No.52/2016, whereby I.A.No.20 filed under Section 151 of CPC, I.A.No.21 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 and I.A.No.22 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC have been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. 3. When the matter was posted for evidence, the legal representatives of plaintiff have filed I.A.No.20 to reopen the case from the arguments to further chief of PW-1, I.A.No.21 to recall PW-1 for further chief examination and I.A.No.22 for production of document, which is related to Sy.No.5/2 to an extent of 25 Guntas and Sy.No.5/1 to an extent of 15 Guntas of R.Chokkanahalli Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk. The trial Court after hearing the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5701 WP No. 3601 of 2025 parties by impugned order dated 10.01.2015 has dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 5. The suit schedule property is HL.No.55 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet situated at R.Chokkanahalli Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk. This suit schedule property has nothing to do with the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.5/2 and Sy.No.5/1. Only reason for seeking for production of the documents by the petitioners is that the defendant has taken a contention that the suit schedule property is coming within the Sy.No.5/2 and 5/1. Production of such documents will not help the petitioners/plaintiffs to prove the case for bare injunction. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5701 WP No. 3601 of 2025 6. There is no any error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11