- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3928 WP No. 7109 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7109 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VASAN GOWDA K. PATIL S/O. LATE SRI. KRISHNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR DSR APARTMENT, AKKAYAMMA BUILDING, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-48. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH B.J., BADVOCATE) AND: SRI SUNIL KUMAR R., S/O. LATE RAGHAVENDRA R., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTHI LAYOUT, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE-60. ALSO WORKING AT BESCOM, SHANTHI LAYOUT, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE-60. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.T.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2019 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH- 67), BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.8693/2017, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED U/O VII RULE 14 OF CPC AND I.A.NO.2 FILED U/O XVIII RULE 17 VIDE ANNX-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.1 AND 2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3928 WP No. 7109 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.8693/2017 dated 07.08.2019 by the LXVI City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, the plaintiff/petitioner is before this court . 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money basing on loan agreement, in that I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 were filed seeking permission to produce the document which is a cheque and to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination. The said applications came to be filed immediately after the evidence of PW-1 and the said application came to be dismissed by the court observing that the plain perusal of the plaint and the chief affidavit evidence of the plaintiff reveal that there is no pleading with regard to the proposed cheque. Therefore even the applications are allowed and the proposed cheque is taken on file and it is exhibited, then also it will not be the document on record without pleading and thus of no use. Hence, the application is dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3928 WP No. 7109 of 2020 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the suit is at the stage of marking of documents. At this stage when the application is allowed and the document is marked the burden still lies on the plaintiff to prove it and the court had considered the merits of it and dismissed the application which is improper and ought to have been allowed and the impugned order needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant submits that without any pleading with regard to the cheque, now they want to mark the cheque and to recall PW-1 and the same is not permissible. The trial court had considered all the aspects and had rightly dismissed the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The parties are always at liberty to have their pleadings and basing on the pleadings the court will frame the issues and basing on that the evidence will be let in. Any amount of evidence that is let in without there being a pleading is inconsequential and the courts will not look into the same. Arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is just at the stage of marking and it is for the plaintiff to prove and at this stage it cannot be objected. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3928 WP No. 7109 of 2020 This court is not able to appreciate the submission made by the petitioner as rightly observed by the trial court. Any amount of evidence cannot be looked into without there being a pleading and just like that without any basis there is no necessity to mark the document and recall PW-1. In the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has rightly considered the facts and passed the order and this court finds no reasons to interfere. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48