- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27198 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MAQBOOL W/O NAZEER AHMED @ BASHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER NAZEER AHMED @ BASHA S/O HASSAN SAB AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT WATER WORKS COLONY OLD TOWN, BETHAMANGALA-563116 BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDEZ, ADV. FOR SMT. VEENA KUMARI M., ADV.) AND: SMT. ALMAS SHAIKH W/O SHAIKH AHMED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALMAS MANZIL, SRB LAYOUT KOLAR ROAD, OLD TOWN BETHAMANGALA-563 116. BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADV.) ® - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION, BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F., IN O.S.100/2009, ON I.A.-XIV UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1, 2 AND 6, R/W S.151 OF CPC AND IA-XV UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, BY COMMON ORDER DATED 15.06.2019, AS PER ANNX-'A' TO THE PETITION, ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 15.06.2019 on I.A.No.XIV under Order XVI Rules 1, 2 and 6 r/w 151 of CPC in O.S.No.100/2009 on the file of 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: - 3 - The plaintiff purchased a property measuring 125 feet X 50 feet from its owner Sri.K.N.Sreenivasa Setty for consideration. The petitioner had put up construction of 12 shops and a house measuring 125 feet X 37 feet on the Eastern side and 27 feet on the Western side in the year 1995. There is a open space measuring 8 feet towards the Southern side of the building constructed by the petitioner, within her property. The property claimed by the respondent is situated towards the southern side of the petitioner’s property. There is a passage of 8 feet on the Northern side of the said property and the open space of the petitioner measuring 8 feet and the 8 feet passage of the property claimed by the respondent being adjacent to each other and together measuring 16 feet is being used as a common passage continuously by tenants/occupants of both the properties for ingress and engress. Since the respondent attempted to encroach and dispossess the petitioner from the open common passage, the petitioner approached the Trial Court seeking the declaration of her title, to declare the open passage measuring 125 feet x - 4 - 16 feet as common passage and to grant permanent injunction in O.S.No.100/2009. 4. On filing the suit, the respondent appeared and filed the written statement wherein a counter claim has been made not only for declaration but also for mandatory injunction to remove the structure to the extent of 125 feet X 11 feet alleging illegal construction. Due to the widening of the road on the Southern side of the property claimed by the respondent, a 15 feet of the said property has been acquired and utilized for widening of the road, known as KGF-V Kota Road. 5. So, to bring the truth before the court, petitioner filed two applications, I.A.No. XIV under Order XIV Rules 1, 2 & 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing of summons to the concerned authorities for the production of documents and to give evidence with regard to property acquired and utilized for road widening and I.A.No.XV under Section 151 of CPC has been filed to re-open the case. - 5 - 6. Respondent filed I.A.No.16 under order XXVI rule 9 r/w section 151 of CPC and the same has been allowed by the Trial Court. 7. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, rejected I.A.Nos.XIV and XV and aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 8. Heard learned counsels on both the sides. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering the fact that there is a counter claim made by the respondent, not only for declaration but also for mandatory injunction to remove the structure to the extent of 125 feet X 11 feet falsely alleging illegal construction. 10. It was further contended that the Court below has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent clearly admits the claim of purchase of property measuring 125 feet X 50 feet by the petitioner and construction made by her. - 6 - 11. It was also contended that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that in view of the averments made and the counter claim made, the petitioner is required to place the proper and material and evidence in that regard. 12. It can be observed from the impugned order of the Trial Court, that the plaintiff has not contended in the plaint that his property is acquired by the Government through PWD Department for extension of road. 13. It can be further observed that the Trial Court has concluded that the application filed by plaintiff is to call the witness to give statement on acquisition of defendant’s property for formation of Bethamanagala Road and the same is not the subject matter of the suit and ultimately concluded that no purpose would be served if I.A.s are to be allowed and thereby, rejected the applications. 14. On hearing the submissions of the counsels, on perusal of the material on record and on perusal of the impugned order dated 15.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.XIV in - 7 - O.S.No.100/2009, it is observed that the Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order and no need to interfere in this order. There are no merits to interfere in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH