- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51713 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MASROOR PASHA, S/O ANWAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A 20, SOUNDER'S ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,BANGALORE - 560005. 2. SMT. AKTHARUNNISSA, S/O ANWAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 20, SOUNDERS ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,BANGALORE - 560005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SYED QUALEELULLA QUADRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS SAHANA AHMADI YUSUF, W/O YUSUF SUHAIL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.281, 7TH CROSS, 2NDA MAIN ROAD, NEAR KADIRENAHALLI CROSS, JHBCS LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560078. 2. FAN KOUCHUN, S/O LATE CHUN SHANG, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.145/1, NEHRU STREET, VENKATGESHPURAM, BANGALORE - 560045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YASHWANTH NETHAJI N T, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED DTD.7.11.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY THE HON'BLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-25) DTD.7.11.2019 ON MEMOS 1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.6275/2008. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 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 Present petition is filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6275/2008, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') by which the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioners/defendants to examine two additional witnesses, named in the memo dated 07.11.2019, namely (1). Concerned officer attached to ACP, J.C.Nagar Sub-division, Bengaluru, (2) Officer in-charge, FSL Department, Madivala Bengaluru on the premise that by an earlier application filed on 24.10.2019, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 had sought to examine only one witness, who had already been examined as DW.2 and that the defendants cannot keep on examining the witnesses. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that the very suit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2, contending that the petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 based on a alleged power of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 attorney purported to have been executed by the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 in his favour in respect of the suit property had alienated the same in favour of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1. It is the further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that, respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 had sold the suit property in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1. As such, the said transaction made by the petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 in favour of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 based on the said alleged power of attorney was not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. In response, petitioners/defendants in their written statement had denied the allegation of the power of attorney being a created document. 4. Counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that a complaint had been filed by the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 before the concerned Police alleging fabrication of the power of attorney relied upon by the petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 and that upon an enquiry made thereon a 'B' report was filed. The said 'B' report is based on the FSL report which had found the execution of power of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 attorney by respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 in favour of petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 was genuine. He submits it is for this purpose, the additional witnesses were required to be examined, absence of which would not have made effective adjudication of the matter. He submits that technicality of filing a memo ought to have been dispensed with inasmuch in the application filed earlier, there was a reference with regard to the requirement of examining the said witnesses. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently submits that the procedure adopted by the petitioners by filing a memo without seeking to summon the witnesses to lead evidence is unknown, more particularly when they have not given the list of witnesses at the appropriate point in time. Without application as prescribed under the law, a request for examining the additional witnesses is impermissible. He further refers to the averments made in the written statement to submit that it is the very case of the petitioners/defendants, that petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 purchased the property on his own rights and not based on the power of attorney, therefore attempt now being made to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 examine the witnesses to prove or disprove the execution of power of attorney is immaterial. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. Plaintiffs at paragraph No.3 of the plaint have made a specific allegations with regard to petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 proclaiming herself to have obtained a power of attorney from respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2. Further pleading in the said paragraph No.3 would indicate that the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 denying the execution of any such power of attorney in favour petitioner No.2/defendant No.2. The said allegations have been denied in written statement by the petitioners/defendants. 8. Be that as it is. From the averments made in the plaint and submissions now made, what emanates is that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 are intending to produce the documents to disprove the claim of the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 of he not executing the power of attorney in favour of petitioner No.2/defendant No.2. The documents sought to the produced through the witnesses named in memo - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 dated 07.11.2019 are; the 'B' report, which is filed by the Concerned Police after investigation into the complaint made by the plaintiffs, the FSL report with regard to the authenticity/genuineness of the power of attorney. 9. Since the contents of the said documents has not been disputed. It is always open for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 to produce the said documents through their evidence, 10. Necessary at this juncture to note that inherent power under Section 151 of CPC can be invoke as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palaaniswamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 to meet the ends of justice. This in the light of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and the core dispute involved in the matter, it is essential that the petitioners be permitted to lead evidence in this regard. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 at this juncture submits, another memo was filed on the very same date, seeking to produce an agreement which is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the premise that no details of any nature - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12721 WP No. 51713 of 2019 whatsoever are forthcoming as to the nature of the document sought to be produced by the petitioners/defendants. Objections raised are justified. Reserving liberty to the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 to produce the aforesaid documents by making appropriate application in this regard, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8