- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.50305/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. RAKESH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS NO.58, SILVER JUBILEE PARK ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. RAJIV KUMAR JAIN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA B.G. ADV.,) AND: 1. V.G. NEELAMMA W/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. V. SHAMALA D/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. V. VEERABHADRA SWAMY S/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 4. V. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 5. V. SOMANATH SWAMY S/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 6. M. MUNUSWAMY REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.186 VISHVANILAYA MURUGESHPALYA, HAL POST BANGALORE-560 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 R6 ABATED V.O.DTD:09.09.2024) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH-67) IN O.S.NO.3218/2005 ON THE I.A. DATED 05.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE- A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH-67) TO ALLOW THE IA DATED 05.11.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.3218/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER The plaintiff has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or similar Writ or Order quashing the Order dated 21.10.2019, passed by the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCCH-67), in O.S.No.3218/2005 on the I.A. dated 05.11.2015 vide Annexure-A. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or similar writ or order directing the learned LXVI Additional City - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCCH-67), to allow the I.A. dated 05.11.2015 filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.3218/2005 vide Annexure-G & etc. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Nanjundaradhya B.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with list of witnesses, seeking to condone the delay in furnishing the said list. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact, on incorrect reasoning, rejected the application. It is submitted that the Trial Court has further recorded a finding that the suit is of the year 2005 and on that ground, this application came to be rejected. He seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Sri.Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the suit is for specific performance of the contract which was filed in the year 2005 and subsequently, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 petitioner has dragged the suit till this day and only in the year 2015, this application came to be filed though the issues were already framed on 10.09.2007. He further submits that the petitioner is not a diligent litigant and if any leniency is shown, he would drag the proceedings further. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the material available on record. 6. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.3218/2005 against the respondents seeking to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property based on the sale agreement dated 25.07.2002. In the said suit, after framing of the issues, an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC came to be filed. In the said application, at paragraphs 3 and 4, the petitioner has explained the delay in filing the application and specifically stated that he intends to examine the witnesses as per the list of witnesses annexed to the said application. The Trial Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 without considering the aforesaid paragraphs has recorded the finding that the pleading is bald and no specific statement is made with regard to the necessity to examine the witnesses. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application on technical grounds. No prejudice would be caused to the other side if the application is allowed on terms. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 21.10.2019 passed on the application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.3218/2005 on the file of the LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengluru, is set aside. (ii) The application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed subject to the petitioner paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20033 W.P. No.50305/2019 (iii) Taking note of the fact that the suit is of year 2005, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44