- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 176 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AMIT ROY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT CTS NO.114, JAYAMAHAL PALACE JAYAMAHAL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H H MAHARANI KUMUD KUMARI ABOUT 84 YEARS. 2. H.H.MAHARAJAH SHRI HIMANSHUSINJI JYOTENDRASINHJI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HUZUR BANGLA GONDAL RAJKOT-360311. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S BASAVARAJ, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANT., ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IN WP NO. 8881/2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT ON 27.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 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 review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8881/2025. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1963/2002 on the file of XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit has been filed for eviction. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues and posted the matter for evidence. The plaintiffs led evidence through Special Power of Attorney holder, namely, Sri.Vallabh D. Radhanpura as PW-1. In chief-examination, PW-1 has marked two title deeds i.e., Ex.O1 dated 07.08.1918 and Ex.O2 dated 03.10.1949 and the same were permitted to be marked as such, subject to the objections to be filed by the defendant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 Later, the defendant filed objections. Since marking of the documents was objected by the defendant, the said documents were marked as Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 on 14.07.2016 for the purpose of identification. Thereafter, the Trial Court by order dated 21.07.2017 upheld the objection filed by the defendant and Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 were taken as not admissible in evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.35358/2017 before this Court. This Court by order dated 03.07.2019 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and held that the Trial Court shall admit the subject documents in evidence and reserved liberty to the defendant to lead further evidence either by examining/further examining or further cross examining any witness or by producing any document, as may be required for the due adjudication of the lis. Thereafter, the Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2024 has admitted the documents i.e., Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 and marked as Ex.P-38 and Ex.P- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 39 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant approached this Court in W.P.No.8881/2025. This Court by order dated 27.03.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present review petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has contended that after this Court in W.P.No.35358/2017 directed the Trial Court to admit the documents i.e., Ex.O1 and Ex.O2, the Trial Court without following the procedure prescribed under Order XIII Rule 4 of CPC and Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC has suo-moto marked the said documents as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. The same is contrary to the said provisions of law. He further contended that the documents have to be marked after witness entering into the witness box and only in presence of the witness, the documents have to be marked. In the present case, the witness has not entered the witness box and Trial Court has suo-moto - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 marked the said documents and they are not admissible in evidence. The order of the Trial Court allowing to mark the documents as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39, is liable to be set aside. The same was not brought to the notice of this Court while disposing W.P.No.8881/2025. Therefore, the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.8881/2025 is required to be recalled. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs has contended that the documents have been marked by PW-1 by entering into the witness box on 14.07.2016 itself as Ex.O1 and Ex.O2. Since the defendant had objected, the Trial Court has accepted the objections and the said documents have not been admitted in evidence. However, this Court by order dated 03.07.2019 allowed the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.35358/2017 filed by the plaintiffs and directed the Trial Court to admit the subject documents in evidence. Pursuant to the directions of this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 Court, the Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2024 has admitted the documents as Ex.P-38 and Ex.P39. Since the witness has already entered the witness box and marked the documents, the presence of PW-1 is not necessary. Since there was a specific direction by this Court to the Trial Court to admit the documents in evidence, the Trial Court by order 21.11.2024 has rightly admitted the documents in evidence and marked as Ex.P-38 and Ex.P39. The order, which is challenged in W.P.No.8881/2025 is the same order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1963/2002 pursuant to the directions of this Court in earlier writ petition. Therefore, this Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition No.8881/2025 on 27.03.2025 filed by the defendant. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the review petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondents. Perused the review papers. 6. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for eviction. Sri.Vallabh D. Radhanpura, the Special Power Attorney holder of plaintiffs has been examined as PW-1. He has entered the witness box on 14.07.2016 and he has marked the title deeds dated 07.08.1918 and 03.10.1949. The said deeds have been marked as Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 respectively for the purpose of identification. Since the defendant filed objections and objected for marking of the said deeds on the ground of deficiency of payment of stamp duty, the Trial Court accepted the objections filed by the defendant and admissibility of the said documents in evidence came to be rejected by order dated 21.07.2017. Challenging the said order of the Trial Court, W.P.No.35358/2017 came to be filed by the plaintiffs. This Court by order dated 03.07.2019 has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order dated 03.07.2019 reads thus: “In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is favoured; the impugned order is set at naught; the trial court shall admit the subject documents in evidence. Since suit is of the year 2002, the court below shall try and dispose off the same within an outer limit of one year and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. It is needless to mention that, now that the subject documents having been held admissible in evidence, it is open to the respondent to lead further evidence either by examining/further examining or further cross examining any witnesses or by producing any document, as may be required for the due adjudication of the lis. No costs.” 7. From the above said order, it is very clear that there is a specific direction by this Court that the Trial Court shall admit the subject documents in evidence. Since PW-1 has already marked documents after entering the witness box on 14.07.2016 and also in view of the directions of this Court, the Trial Court by order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21947 RP No. 176 of 2025 dated 21.11.2024 has marked the documents i.e., Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 as Ex.P38 and P39 respectively. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the procedure prescribed under Order XIII Rule 4 of CPC and Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC has not been complied, is not correct. 8. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court has rightly dismissed W.P.No.8881/2025 by order dated 27.03.2025. There is no error or infirmity in the said order. The review petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. All pending I.As. in this petition, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14