- 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.2928 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, 2. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, 3. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ASHRIHAL, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIMMAKKA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O SANNABHYRAPPA, ASHRIHAL, KANDIKERE HOBLI, - 2 - CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. 2. BORAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O GIRIYAPPA, MUSAKONDLY, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. 3. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O THIMMAIAH, GALIGEKERE, HAGALAWADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. 4. LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O MOHAN KUMAR, HOSAKERE, MUDDENAHALLI POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. 5. BHYRALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SANNABHYRAPPA 6. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SANNABHYRAPPA 7. KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SANNABHYRAPPA 8. KEMPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE GANTIGAIAH, - 3 - 9. G. PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE GANTIGAIAH, 10. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE GANTIGAIAH 11. G. PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE GANTIGAIAH 12. DAKSHAYANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE GANTIGAIAH 13. KARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE SIDDAIAH, 14. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, 15. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAIAH 16. BHYRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE SIDDAIAH SL.NO.5-16 ARE RESIDING ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ASHRIHAL, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. 17. SHANKARAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE SIDDAIAH, - 4 - W/O ANANDAIAH, ARALIKERE, NAVILE POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. 18. BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SANNABHYRAPPA, ASHIRHAL, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. 19. NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, ARALIKERE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRIC – 572 214. ... RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS H/S V/O DATED 10.06.2025; R3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 02.11.2023, PETITION AGAINST R4 STANDS DISMISSED; BY SRI. RAMESH P. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7 & R18; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R17 & R19) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.12.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DISMISSING IAs-40, 41 & 42 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS NO.229/05 (ANNEXURE-K). - 5 - THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order by order dated 14.12.2018 on the file of the learned Additional City Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli (‘the Trial Court’ for short) on IAs No.41 and 42 filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.229/2005 (Annexure-K) including direction to consider their applications. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- - 6 - The petitioners instituted O.S.No.229/2005 seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, contending that they are the children of Kempaiah S/o Kempamma, who died in the year 2000, and that the said properties were acquired from the joint family nucleus of Kempamma and her four sons. It was pleaded that despite repeated demands, the respondents failed to effect partition and, therefore, the suit came to be filed. 4. The respondents entered appearance. The first defendant contended that Kempaiah had already obtained a share in Sy.No.56 and that the suit schedule properties were his self-acquired properties. Defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 7 denied the plea of partition dated 20.03.1969 and 30.05.1993 set up by Defendant No.1 and claimed shares for themselves. The relationship among the parties was, however, not disputed. 5. The respondents did not lead evidence or cross- examine the petitioners. The Trial Court, upon consideration of - 7 - pleadings and evidence adduced by the petitioners, decreed the suit on 10.12.2012, allotting 1/4th share to the petitioners. 6. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No.1 to 7 and 18 preferred R.A.No.75/2014 before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.75/2014. They also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce an alleged partition deed dated 03.05.1993. The Appellate Court, by order dated 27.08.2015, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in light of the additional documents sought to be produced. 7. After remand, respondents No.1 to 7 and 18 adduced their evidence and produced documents, but according to the petitioners, the documents were inconsistent with those relied upon in appeal and an altogether new defence was raised. 8. At that stage, the petitioners filed IAs No.40, 41 & 42 under Order XVI Rule 17 CPC and for reopening of the case, seeking recall of PW-1 and production of necessary documents - 8 - which had been omitted earlier but were essential for meeting the new case set up by the respondents. 9. The respondents filed a common objection (Annexure-J) contending that the said applications were filed only to delay disposal of the suit. 10. The learned Trial Court, ignoring the fact that although the suit was of the year 2005, the remand was ordered only on 27.08.2015 and that there was neither delay nor negligence attributable to the petitioners, dismissed the IAs No.40, 41 and 42, solely on the ground that the matter was old and posted for arguments, and thus passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 and no reasons were assigned regarding the relevancy of the documents. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Appellate Court had directed consideration of documents relied upon by the respondents, but instead, the respondents produced new documents and filed to produce the documents which are specifically referred to in - 9 - appeal. It is urged that the trial Court failed to appreciate that without permitting production of documents and recalling PW-1, the petitioners would suffer irreparable prejudice. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed before this Court. It is observed that the petitioner filed the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC. The provision reads as follows : “(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 13. While dealing with the provision, it is observed that the petitioner has to satisfy the following points for considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3), those are: a) Relevancy of the documents can be taken on record, b) Admissibility of the documents, c) Sufficient/Reasonable cause for the Delay is relevant for consideration. - 10 - 14. In the present case the petitioner failed to satisfy the above points for considering his application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. So, in view of the same, the petitioner failed to explain the relevancy and admissibility of the documents which are filed by him and the delay of 10 years also not explained. Further, this Court relied on the following judgments: i. Hyatu Nisa v. Vikas Bhatia reported in 2012 SCC OnLine MP 10029, wherein it was held as under, “ The provision of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC., is very clear on this question when there is no sufficient cause is made out on the record for not producing the documents inspite having knowledge and custody of the same on earlier stage, then such documents could not be taken on record at later stage.” ii. Ashok Choudhary v. Gwalior Dairy Ltd., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1955 : (2018) 2 MP LJ 301 at page 304, wherein it was held as follows: 8. As far as application under Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code is concerned, same has been partially rejected in respect of those documents which was not readable namely certified copies of the statements of Chandrakant, Suresh, Anand and Prakash. Similarly - 11 - application which was filed for mutation and certified copy of Khasra panchshala. It was always open to the petitioner to have obtained readable copies of the documents and to produce them before the trial Court. Since the plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden and this Court has already held that provisions under Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code is not a hollow formality but the rule of the Court is essential, therefore, the Court was very much within its right to exercise his discretion in refusing such leave on the ground that such documents were not readable. No explanation has been given as to why legible copies could not be produced and what prevented the plaintiff from filing it earlier at the time of filing of this suit and why such documents were not mentioned in the list to be produced under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(2), Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, in absence of such documents being entered into in terms of the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 14(1) or Order 7, Rule 14(2), the Court was required to exercise its jurisdiction and discretion while granting leave. iii. Bhaiyalal v. Ramswaroop, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 3821, wherein it was held as follows: “ 4. …the provision of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code is not a hollow formality. It is further evident that when the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed, the suit had reached the stage of cross-examination of plaintiff. The request was, thus, made during the progress of the trial, which falls within Clause (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC, - 12 - which provides that documents, which are not presented along with the plaint at the time of institution of the suit, shall not be allowed to be produced or entered in evidence without the leave of the Court. Thus, the provisions of Clause (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC do not permit liberal interpretation. 15. In view of the above, no fault can be found in the findings of the trial Court contained in the impugned order and, therefore this Court refrains itself from interfering in its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in dismissing the applications as the same was filed after lapse of ten (10) years and no sufficient reason was assigned. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application assigning sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the petition, within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the Court below after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, shall decide the same by imposing cost for the inordinate delay, the dispute between the parties shall be considered by the trial Court and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of 30 days - 13 - from the date of filing of the applications, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner has to file fresh applications within the stipulated time, failing which, this order would not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner. 16. Accordingly trial Court is at liberty to decide upon the applications with respect to reopening of the case, recall of PW-1 and production of documents. 17. With the aforesaid observations Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv CT: UR