- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 14019 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 2. SMT. MANGALA PRIYA W/O SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.862, 1ST FLOOR 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN 7TH BLOCK, KALIDASANAGARA HOSAKEREHALLI, B.S.K. III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GAGAN S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. RAVI @ S. RAVI S/O LATE SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 2. SMT. JAYA W/O SRI S. RAVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.904 2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS 4TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK KALIDASANAGARA HOSAKEREHALLI, B.S.K. III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.7462/2011 ON I.A.NOs.7 TO 9 (ANNEXURE-K) ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, I.A.No.8 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, I.A.No.9 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.10 filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7462/2011, defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein have preferred this writ petition. 2. The aforementioned interlocutory applications are filed by the plaintiffs when the case was posted for final arguments before the trial court. They are filed with an intention of reopening the evidence and permitting the plaintiffs to produce documents and lead further evidence and also for issuance of summons to the Police Sub-Inspector of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station whom the plaintiffs intend to examine as a witness. The said applications were objected to by the petitioners herein. However, the trial court has passed the following order: "Sri AK advocate filed NOC vakalath for plaintiffs. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 Defendant counsel filed objection to I.A.No.7 to 9. Heard both counsels. I.A.No.7 is filed by the plaintiff seeking production of documents, I.A.No.8 is filed by the plaintiff u/o 16 Rule 1 and 2 CPC along with list of witnesses and I.A.No.9 and 10 for recall of PW-1 for further evidence. It is true to that, these applications are filed by the plaintiff at the stage of argument. Merely because case is at the stage of argument, party cannot be prevented for leading further evidence. At the same time no blank permission can be given without imposing cost. With these reasons I am of the opinion that plaintiff's applications deserved to be allowed. Hence the following; ORDER Application filed u/o 7 Rule 14 CPC is allowed, plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents. Similarly other applications are allowed, plaintiff is recalled to lead further evidence on the documents produced and examine witness if necessary. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 All these applications are allowed on payment of cost of Rs.4,000/-. For payment of cost and further evidence of plaintiff subject to single chance by 26.03.2019." 3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. Respondents, though represented by an Advocate, he has remained absent. On the last date of hearing also, he had remained absent. 4. The original suit is filed by the respondents contending that the property was allotted to one late Chinnappa by the Bangalore Development Authority and the said Chinnappa happens to be the grandfather of respondent No.1 and also the petitioners herein. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and are residing in the ground floor of the said property and that the petitioners herein fraudulently got the sale deed executed in respect of the entire property from the Bangalore Development Authority and that they are residing in only first floor of the property. It is further contended that on the strength of the sale deed, they are trying to illegally dispossess the respondents. On the said ground, O.S.No.7462/2011 is filed with the following prayers: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 "Wherefore, the plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: a) Pass the judgment and decree in the nature of permanent of injunction against the defendants and thereby restrain the defendants or their agents, henchman, servants, and whoever may be claiming through the defendants from dispossessing of the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without following due process of law. b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems to be fit and proper and decree the suit with cost in the ends of justice and equity." 5. In the course of the proceedings, when the original suit was posted for arguments, the respondents filed the aforementioned interlocutory applications wherein they have sought to re-examine PW.1 (respondent No.1), produce additional documents and also examine the Police Sub- Inspector of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station as an additional witness. This has been objected to by the petitioners. However, the trial court in the interest of justice and with a view to give adequate opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs has allowed the aforementioned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 applications and has passed the impugned order as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respondents/plaintiffs have made certain admissions in the cross examination which are detrimental to the interest of the respondents and the present applications are filed only with a view to cure the lacuna in their cross examination and that the trial court without applying its mind in a mechanical manner has allowed the applications. 7. A court may at any stage of the suit recall any witness who has been examined and may put such questions to whom the Court thinks fit. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has thought it fit to allow the said applications, in order to give maximum opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs to prove their case. 8. Perusal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC shows that the respondents/plaintiffs intend to produce the following documents: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 "1) The ration card 2) The Electricity bills dated 15/01/2019 in three numbers 3) The election identity card of 2nd Plaintiff 4) The amount remitted challan with copy of the DD by the 1st plaintiff dated 3/10/2002 to BDA in respect of suit schedule property 5) The telephone registration card. 6) The certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1395/2009 7) The FIR dated 14/03/2017" The said documents on the face of it show that the documents are relevant for the case. No fault can be found with the decision of the trial court in allowing the said application. For marking the said documents, it is essential to recall PW.1 through whom the said documents are required to be marked. For the said purpose, an application is made under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and the same has been allowed by the trial court, which is also just and proper. However, it is hereby clarified that further evidence sought to be adduced by PW.1 shall be limited to the extent of production of documents as stated in the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 CPC and not beyond the same. The opportunity provided by the trial court shall not be used by the respondents/plaintiffs to cure the lacuna or admissions made in the cross examination. Further, as the case was posted for arguments, an application is made under Section 151 of CPC for recall of the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff. This also cannot be faulted with. 9. I.A.No.8 is filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to summon the Police Sub-Inspector, Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station as a witness in the case. The reason assigned is that on 07.03.2017 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioners/defendants along with their henchmen tried to enter the ground floor premises of the property and caused a fracture injury to the left hand finger of respondent No.2 and committed various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and in this regard, a FIR was lodged by the respondents against the petitioners herein and to evidence it, the Police Inspector is sought to be summoned. 10. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.4695/2018 by the Court of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, wherein in pursuance of the FIR lodged, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners herein along with two other persons but all of them have been acquitted. Further, the contents of the FIR and the judgment delivered in C.C.No.4695/2018 can be proved by producing the necessary certified copies. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which pertain to possession of the suit schedule property by the respondents/plaintiffs and the alleged interference by the petitioners/defendants, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of a Police Sub-Inspector as sought by the respondents/plaintiffs is not required. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to allowing the applications filed under Section 151 of CPC (I.A.No.10), Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC (I.A.No.7) and Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC (I.A.No.9) is hereby upheld; (iii) The impugned order 20.02.2019 passed by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14597 WP No. 14019 of 2019 insofar as it relates to allowing I.A.No.8 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby set aside and I.A.No.8 before the Trial Court stands dismissed. (iv) The costs imposed on the respondents/plaintiffs by the trial court is upheld. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35