1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13141 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PRABHA A KUMAR W/O SRI A.S. ABHAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A: NO.4/1, 2ND CROSS N.S IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020 BY GPA HOLDER SRI A.S ABHAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.B.S. MANJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P.T SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE THOTADAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O P.T SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. SRI S NANJUNDA S/O P.T. SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/A: PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 098 2 4. THE COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098 5. SRI N.R NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.6 KATHARIGUPPE MAIN ROAD BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 6. SRI G.V RAVINDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE G.V REDDY RESIDING AT NO.26, 4TH CROSS, BINNY LAYOUT, III STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040 7. SMT. C.S RASHMI W/O K.M SIDDARAJU AGED MAJOR R/A: NO.519, SHIVA BINDU, ITC LAYOUT, OPP: RAJARAJESHWARI ARCH, MYSURU ROAD BANGALORE - 560 039 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.T. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA ADVOCATE FOR C/R–7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.238/2007 DATED 08.07.2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The present writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.07.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No. 238/2007 by the learned LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the Respondents No.1 to 7 are the Defendants 1 to 7 before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under: The petitioner herein has filed suit for relief of declaration and injunction in relation to the suit property contending that the defendants being the erstwhile owners had executed several transactions in favour of REMCO (BHEL) House building Co- operative Society (‘Society’ for short) in relation to Survey No.24/3 and Survey No.17/1 of Pattanagere village. In furtherance of the same, despite there was an acquisition and it had resulted in quashing, the society had allotted and executed a sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the 4 plaintiff and the land owners having lost possession are estopped from interfering with the possession of the schedule property. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and contended that the acquisition was quashed by this Court and was confirmed by the Apex Court and therefore, plaintiff has no claim over the property. Defendant No.4 contended by way of separate written statement that no cause of action is made out against defendant No.4 as being statutory authority. Defendants No.5 and 6 again filed the written statement reiterating the contentions of Defendant No.1 and claimed that society was not entitled to claim any rights and therefore, plaintiff was also not entitled to claim any rights under the society and defendants having purchased the property are the owners of the property. Since there were transactions from 1984 and onwards where the erstwhile owners have already divested themselves of the right, title and interest and the documents being in the custody of society, an application had been filed seeking to summon the documents from the society. In respect of the same survey number, another site was formed and owner Sri.S.Mohan filed O.S.No.10349/2006 and trial court by an order informed that both 5 cases will be taken up together. Even in this suit, an application for production of documents was filed and upon the documents having been produced, duty penalty was sought to be imposed, though the Court opined that it may not be payable in strict sense, by relying upon earlier orders, directed the payment by an order dated 03.02.2020 and the same is for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.12340/2021 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.10349/2006. Since the documents were necessary and are required to be marked, the plaintiff again filed an application as per I.A.No.1/2021 seeking permission to lead additional evidence and I.A.No.2/2021 for recalling of the Order dated 08.07.2019. The Court after considering both the applications, dismissed the applications vide Order dated 08.07.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the plaintiff is not privy to any of the documents and since documents are in custody of the society, an application was filed seeking summoning of these documents. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court observed that the documents are 6 already produced in the connected suit O.S.No.10349/2006 and held that different view cannot be taken in the present suit even if the documents were to be summoned and this very approach of the trial Court is not justified when a sufficient reason was shown for enabling the production of documents in whatever form which is to be taken for the knowledge of the court. 6. It was also contended that the Court ought to have accommodated for production of documents and denial of the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order needs interference of this Court in as much as sufficient reasons were shown. 7. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court calling for interference by this Court. 8. It can be observed from the impugned order that the plaintiff has filed the I.As to recall the order dated 08.07.2019 and to reopen the case to lead further chief examination and the defendant has objected on the ground of delay, i.e., after the lapse of three years from the Order of this Court by Order dated 13.11.2017 in W.P.Nos.34506-34507/2017, permitting the 7 plaintiff to summon President of REMCO BHEL Co-operative Society Ltd. Another ground that the defendant has taken is that the matter was posted for the arguments and therefore, applications cannot be allowed. 9. It can be further observed that the plaintiff has submitted before the trial Court that he would submit the documents after the disposal of R.P.No.228/2011, however, plaintiff had not made any efforts to produce the documents and the matter was posted for arguments and the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021. 10. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the President of REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative is not a party to the suit and therefore, cannot be marked through him and if the plaintiff really wanted to produce documents, they can be filed on her behalf and have to be marked by adducing her evidence. 11. It can be observed further that the trial Court directed in O.S.No.10349/2006 to mark those documents by paying duty and penalty and so plaintiff cannot be permitted to mark those documents unless the duty and penalty is paid in the said case. It can be also clearly observed that the plaintiff in the application 8 has also not stated anything about her willingness to pay duty and penalty as per the Court’s direction. 12. Ultimately trial Court concluded that the case cannot be reopened for the purpose of marking documents and as such there is no necessity of recalling the Order dated 08.07.2019. 13. Perused the material on record and also heard submissions of both the counsels. It is observed that the scope of the writ petition has to be decided on the impugned Order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the dated 08.07.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No. 238/2007 by the learned LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. The scope of the impugned Order challenged by the petitioner is that on a common Order, i.e., Order on I.A.No.1/2021 and I.A.No.2/2021. As could be seen from the record, I.A.No.1/2021 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 praying for reopening the case and permit him to lead evidence, to mark certain documents through the President of REMCO House Building Co-operative Society and another I.A.No.2/2021 is filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC praying to recall the Order dated 08.07.2019. Further, it is observed that on hearing both sides, the trial Court has dismissed both the applications. 9 14. As seen from the Order sheet and other material on record, it is observed that I.A.No.14 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1(2) of CPC on 16.06.2017 praying to summon the President of REMCO BHEL House Building Co- operative Society to produce the documents, viz., original declaration cum ratification dated 14.12.2000, original GPA dated 14.12.2000, original agreement dated 15.03.1992. The said application was heard and the trial Court has rejected the said application vide Order dated 19.07.2017, as aggrieved by the Order dated 19.07.2017, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition and the same was allowed and the Order dated 19.07.2017 is quashed. Thereafter, in view of the Orders of this Court, the trial Court has summoned the President of REMCO BHEL House Building Co- operative Society to produce the documents and the President of the said Society was present and submitted that the said documents were already produced before the High Court in R.P.No.228/2011 and further submitted that he will obtain the said documents from the High Court and produce before the Court. Thereafter, the witness took several adjournments, but did not come forward to file documents and at the same time, the 10 plaintiff also not made any efforts to produce the documents and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 18.07.2019, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and posted for defendant’s evidence. The evidence of the defendant was also completed and the matter was posted for final arguments and also posted for filing of the written arguments of the plaintiff. 15. As observed on the submissions of the counsel that there is another suit pending, i.e., O.S.10349/2006 along with the suit with the same subject matter and further, the same documents were also filed and the same were pending for marking for want of payment of the stamp duty and penalty on those documents. Though the Court was directed to pay the stamp duty and penalty, but the parties have not paid and the same is pending before the Court. Moreover, it is observed REMCO BHEL House Building Co-operative Society is not a party and the documents cannot be marked through it. Further, it is observed that the filing of these I.As after rejecting the applications of the plaintiff after three years, it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff intends to protract the legal proceedings before the trial Court. The petitioner and the respondent filed citations which are not relied upon to decide the scope of this petition. 11 16. In view of above discussions, it is opined that there are latches on the part of the plaintiff to entertain this petition. However, for rendering equity of justice between the parties and in view of the long pendency of the suit, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The impugned Order dated 08.07.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.238/2007 by the learned LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, is hereby set aside ii) The trial Court is directed to reopen the case and permit the plaintiff to mark the above mentioned documents by recalling Order dated 08.07.2019 and further, to give opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law. iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, both the parties are directed to co- operate with the trial Court for speedy disposed of the case. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-VS