- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51599 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. HABEEBULLA SHARIFF S/O. LATE MAHABOOB SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, SHUKOOR CIRCLE, KENGERI TOWN, BENGALURU CITY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOYEENULLA ABBASI.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MUNIRAMAIAH S/O. CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KODIPALYA, VIDYAPEETHA ROAD, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-440) BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.2366/2004 DATED 24.10.2019 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.cv Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is a legal representative of deceased defendant No.2 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2019 passed on application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(a) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC in I.A.No.36 in suit in O.S.No.2366/2004 on the file of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, by which, request of the petitioner to receive the documents which are already on record and to mark the same in evidence has been rejected. 2. The above suit is filed by the respondent /plaintiff No.2 for relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 namely, one Mohaboob Shariff passed away during the pendency of the suit. Upon the demise of defendant No.2, his legal representatives were brought on record. That on earlier occasion the petitioner herein had filed an application - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC (I.A.No.27) and another application under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Order 18 Rule 2(2) of CPC (I.A.No.28) seeking to produce and mark certain documents in evidence. The said applications came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2015 on the premise that original defendant No.2 had not filed the written statement, as such no evidence could have been lead in the absence of written statement. It is further opined that since the documents sought to be produced do not fall under any of the categories mentioned under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the production of documents could not be permitted. Subsequently, written statement of the legal representative of defendant No.2 was filed on 02.03.2019 and same having been taken on record, present application is filed by the petitioner seeking receipt and marking of the documents which are already on record. By the impugned order the Trial Court relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of SMT. SUKHRANI (DEAD) BY L.Rs AND OTHERS vs. HARI SHANKER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1979 SC 1436 and Y.B. PATIL AND OTHERS vs. Y.L. PATIL reported in AIR 1977 SC 392 has held that since the principles of res- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 judicata is applicable even in respect of interim applications, the present application filed by the petitioner for production of documents is hit by principles of resjudicata, as such rejected the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition and the grounds urged therein submits that the reason for rejection of applications on earlier occasion was non-filing of written statement and said defect/requirement having been cured by filing written statement, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the present application on the premise of same having been hit by principal of resjudicata. He submits that the said principle is inapplicable to the facts situation of the matter. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of filing written statement and he could have produced the documents along with written statement. That not having been done, present applications seeking production of documents is therefore not maintainable. Besides the attempt made earlier - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 having been declined, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for. He submits that there is no error of any nature in the orders passed. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. The impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner filed in I.A.No.36 was solely on the ground that the earlier application in I.A.Nos.27 and 28 filed by the petitioner had been rejected and the same operated as resjudicata in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SMT.SUKHRANI (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS VS HARI SHANKER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1979 SC 1436 and Y.B.PATIL AND OTHERS VS Y.L.PATIL reported in AIR 1977 SC 392. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles of law laid down in said Judgments but what is distinguishable in the instant case is that on earlier occasion applications were rejected as original defendant No.2 himself had not filed any written statement. Therefore, in the absence of any written statement by the original defendant No.2 or his legal representatives permission to produce the document could not be given. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 7. The aforesaid principles of law would be applicable if without there being any change of circumstance if similar application had been filed. However, after passing of the orders on I.A.Nos.27 and 28 as noted above, petitioner herein and other legal representatives of defendant No.2 had indeed filed their written statement and the same has been taken on record. It is submitted that issues have been framed subsequent to filing of written statement by the legal representatives of defendant No.2. Therefore the trial Court ought to have taken this changed circumstances into consideration before rejecting the applications on the premise of same having been barred by principles of resjudicata. There is no reason or whisper regarding this aspect of the matter in the impugned order. 8. In that view of the matter rejection of application on the ground of principle of resjudicata is an error requiring interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly petition is allowed. Order dated 24.10.2019 is set aside. I.A.No.36 is allowed. Since the documents produced by the petitioners are in the nature of certified copies of the earlier proceedings, same is stated to have already been on record, trial Court shall - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11005 WP No. 51599 of 2019 permit the petitioners to produce the same in their evidence and proceed further thereafter in accordance with law. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU/ SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6