- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 49638 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ASHA PUSHPENDRANATH W/O LATE M.V. PUSHPENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT 135/A, H.D. KOTE ROD, SRI RAMPURA, MYSURU 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD V, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI M.V. GNANENDRANATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.87/2, FARM HOUSE YEDALLI FARM, RAYANAKAERE POST MYSURU - 570 008. 2. SRI SHAMBHULINGAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPLPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT YADALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 008. 3. RAMYA D/O LATE M.V. PUSHPENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 4. MEGHANATH S/O LATE M.V PUSHPENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT 135/A, H.D. KOTE ROAD, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 (BY SRI M.V. GNANENDRANATH, PARTY IN PERSON - ABSENT R-2 TO R-4 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.11, 12, 13 AND 14 BY REJECTING THEM VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE.A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by plaintiff No.1 with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.09.2019 passed on IA Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 in OS No.714/2012 by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents, who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. OS No.714/2012 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysuru by the petitioner and two others seeking the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendant No.1 has filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of addressing arguments, IA Nos.11 and 12 were filed on behalf of the petitioner herein with prayers to permit the petitioner to adduce further examination-in-chief and also permit her to produce certain documents mentioned in the application. IA Nos.13 and 14 were also filed on behalf of the petitioner with prayer to reopen the case and to recall DW1 for the purpose of further cross-examination by the petitioner. The said applications were opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide two separate orders dated 18.09.2019 has rejected the aforesaid applications and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No.1 has executed a Mortgage Deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property and production of the said document is very relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the present case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 Inadvertently, the said document was not produced and it is under these circumstances, IA Nos.11 to 14 have been filed before the Trial Court. He submits that though in IA No.12, petitioner has sought the permission of the Trial Court to produce as many as four documents as mentioned in the application - IA No.12, petitioner would be satisfied if she is allowed to confront document No.1, namely, Mortgage Deed dated 25.04.2012 to DW-1 and only for the said purpose, DW-1 may be recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination. Except the same, DW1 would not be further cross-examined by the petitioner. 5. The material on record would go to show that plaintiff is the widow of the brother of defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, the recital found in the Mortgage Deed dated 25.04.2012, which is now sought to be produced by the plaintiff will throw light not only on the title of the suit schedule property, but also on the status of the said property. Therefore, production of the said document is very much necessary. Though in the application IA No.12, petitioner has prayed to permit her to produce four documents, particulars of which are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 mentioned in said application, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission before this Court that if the petitioner is permitted to produce the first document, namely, the Mortgage Deed dated 25.04.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, he would be satisfied and DW1 may be recalled for further cross-examination by the petitioner, only for the purpose of confronting the said document and except the same, she will not be further cross-examined. The said submission made on behalf of the petitioner is placed on record. 6. If the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed, the contesting defendants will not be put to hardship. On the other hand, since it is the case of the petitioner that the document in question has a relevancy with respect to the suit schedule property, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, production of said document becomes necessary. The inconvenience caused to the defendants can be compensated by imposing appropriate costs on the petitioner. Accordingly, the following:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed on IA Nos.11 and 12 are confirmed. The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed on IA Nos.13 and 14 is set-aside and consequently, the prayer made in the said applications are granted and the case is re- opened. (iii) The petitioner is permitted to produce the Mortgage Deed dated 25.04.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 before the Trial Court and DW1 is recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination by the petitioner only to confront DW1 with the aforesaid document, namely, Mortgage Deed dated 25.04.2012. (iv) It is made clear that except the same, the petitioner shall not be permitted to further cross-examine DW1. The Trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law and dispose off the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42895 WP No. 49638 of 2019 (v) Cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4