- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25271 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B R KRISHNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. KALPANA V W/O LATE SRI B. R. KRISHNA AGED 58 YEARS 2. SRI ARJUN B K S/O LATE SRI B R KRISHNA AGED 37 YEARS, 3. SMT ASHA B K D/O LATE SRI B R KRISHNA AGED 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 199/E, (NEW NO 67) GROUND FLOOR, 7TH B MAIN ROAD III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PREMNATH N T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B R RAJU S/O LATE B. L. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS REP. BY HIS P. A. HOLDER SRI B.R. DARSHAN R/AT DEEPA DARSHANA #392, (NEW NO. 705) 42ND CROSS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041. 2. SMT B R LALITHAMMA W/O LATE C. SHIVANA GOWDA AGED 84 YEARS R/AT NO. NEW 10 (OLD. NO. 96) 3RD MAIN ROAD, 41ST CROSS 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 082. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.LAKSHMI S HOLLA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. Y RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO. 26204/2013 ON THE FILE OF 72ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-73) AND EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 1.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1/2024 TO IA NO. 3/2024 FILED U/SEC 151 AND UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1(a), (b) and (c) challenging the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce documents, I.A.No.II/2024 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case to adduce further evidence, I.A.No.III/2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall DW1 in O.S.No.26204/2013, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said applications. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter, they have filed application for production of additional documents and the same came to be allowed. When the matter was posted for further arguments, the present applications have been filed. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 Trial Court, by impugned order dated 01.04.2024 has dismissed the said applications. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned senior counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff submits that the suit is of the year 2013. After receiving suit summons, the defendants have filed written statement. Thereafter, the application filed by the defendants for production of additional documents came to be allowed. After evidence has been concluded and matter has been posted for arguments of defendants, one or the other applications are filed by the defendants in order to drag the matter. Earlier I.A.No.5 was filed for directing the BDA to produce certain documents and the same came to be dismissed and the said order is not challenged. Now, the defendants have filed the present applications. Since the defendants have not complied with the provisions of Section 66 of Indian evidence Act, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 4. The specific case of the petitioners-defendants is that now they have obtained the documents from the BDA and want to produce the said documents by way of additional documents to establish their case. 5. Be that as it may. If the applications are allowed, it will not cause any prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, the delay or inaction on the part of the petitioners-defendants could be met by imposing cost and by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.I/2024, II/2024 and III/2024 in O.S.No.26204/2013, is set aside - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11312 WP No. 25271 of 2024 c) I.A.Nos.I/2024, II/2024 and III/2024 filed by the defendant Nos.1(1) to (c) are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Advocates Welfare Fund on or before the next date of hearing fixed by the Trial Court. Payment of cost is a condition precedent. d) It is made clear that the petitioners- defendant Nos.1(a) to (c) have to examine the witnesses on the next date of hearing fixed by the Trial Court and shall proceed with the matter without seeking any further adjournments. e) The respondent No.1-plaintiff shall cross- examine the witnesses, if required, on the date fixed by the Trial Court. All pending I.As. in this writ petition, if any, are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24