- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17754 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O M.REVANA SIDDAIAH RESIDING AT NO. 30/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 040 …PETITIONER (BY DR. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. FAIZUL BAQUIYATH ISLAMIC WELFARE TRUST REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL SECRETARY SRI M.JAMSHEER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. 2. SRI M.JAMSHEER S/O ABDUL MAZEED AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS REGISTERED NO. 639/9181-99 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.13, 3RD MAIN ROAD HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 16.01.2025 PASSED BY XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-10) BENGALURU IN O.S.NO. 4964/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A.NO. 16 TO 18 PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFF TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE BY MARKING THE PHOTOGRAPHS PRODUCED ALONG WITH IA NO.18 ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the concerned Court in O.S.No.4964/2013 rejecting the applications I.A.Nos.16 to 18 filed by the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff is not permitted to lead further evidence by marking the photographs produced along with the IAs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 2. Heard Dr. Amit Anand Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Ismail Zabiulla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.4964/2013 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any prayer hall in the suit schedule property or using the suit schedule property as a place of worship. The issue that has driven the petitioner to this Court is not the merit of the matter. After institution of the suit, written statement is filed by the respondents on 06.01.2015. The concerned Court on 16.08.2022 frames issues. The petitioner - plaintiff files three applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking production of documents and recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination. The applications comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the concerned Court i.e., a common order on all the three applications is on the face of it erroneous in law. What the petitioner is wanted to produce was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 the photo copies of which had already been placed before the Court. The originals were sought to be placed now and on the photographs so filed, the petitioner wanted to continue examine himself in examination-in-chief. All these comes to be rejected is an error, is the submission of the learned counsel. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however refute the submissions in contending that the said applications is preferred at the fag end of the trial and should not be permitted as it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. The afore-narrated facts would render the subject petition in a narrow compass. The order that drives the petitioner is rejecting applications I.A.Nos.16 to 18 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. The order rejecting the applications is as follows: "ORDER ON IA No.16 ΤΟ 18 Heard both side. Plaintiff has filed all these applications to reopen the case for further evidence of PW1 for purpose of marking of photographs and CD. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 It is the case of the plaintiff that, at the time of filing of the suit he has produced the photographs but they were not marked and now he is intending to mark these photographs. The photographs produced by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit are not supported with it's negatives and the photographs produced now are also not supported with negatives. The CD filed by the plaintiff alongwith with these photographs contains scanned copies of the photos as stated by advocate for plaintiff himself. The photographs produced at the time of filing of the Intending to produce. The suit is filed in the year 2013 suit are not similar to the photos now the plaintiff is and plaintiff should have produced photos with negatives at the time of filing of the suit itself. Now he cannot without it's negatives. So, even if case is reopened for produced the photographs taken during the year 2013 purpose for further chief of PW1, these photographs cannot be marked as they are not supported with negatives, the evidence of photographer or it's receipt. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 9059/2013 dt. 17.01.2023 directed both parties to co- operate early disposal of this suit and given 6 months time for disposal of the suit. But inspite of such direction parties are not co-operating for disposal of the case. I have already heard advocate for plaintiff and when the case was posted for further argument, plaintiff filed these applications. So, it appears that only in order to drag on the case, these applications are filed by the plaintiff. Even without photographs the plaintiff can prove his case with evidence available on record. The dispute between the parties is not about construction of the Masjid but it is with respect to whether Masjid can be constructed in residential area or not. So, the photographs which are going to be produced by the plaintiff are not at all material evidence to decide this case on merits. The case is of the year 2013. Already more than 10 years are lapsed. The suit is for bare injunction. So, considering the materials on records, I hold that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 applications filed by the plaintiff is without merits, accordingly they are rejected. Cost shall follow the event. For further argument of the plaintiff by 20.01.2025." The applications preferred was one to continue the examination of PW-1 and to mark certain photographs. The photographs were filed at the time of filing of the petition. The concerned Court directs the negatives of photographs to be filed. It is ununderstandable in this digital era when photographs are taken on a digital camera how negatives can be summoned. The petitioner has produced a compact disk containing the photographs before the Court. A compact disk containing the photographs in its original form would undoubtedly be akin to the negatives of the bygone era. 7. In that light, the order that rejects the applications on the ground that no negatives are filed is on the face of it is unsustainable in law. The consequences there of was examination of PW-1. Therefore, the said cross examination also ought to have been permitted once the documents are taken in place. The order is bereft of reasons. The order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 impugned does not demonstrate even a semblance of application of mind on the part of the concerned Court. On all these reasons, the order is unsustainable in law and is necessarily to be obliterated. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-10), Bengaluru in O.S.No.4964/2013 stands quashed. (iii) I.A.Nos.16 to 18 are allowed. (iv) The photographs are to be taken on record in accordance with law, if necessary, a certificate Under Section 65B of the Information Technology Act, as it is electronic evidence. (v) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already directed conclusion of the trial within six (6) months, 2 years ago. Therefore, the trial should conclude within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25445 WP No. 17754 of 2025 (vi) It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis shall co-operate for conclusion of the trial as is observed hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: BHK