1 Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Pronounced on : 07.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.17889 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.19133 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) IN WRIT PETITION No.17889 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. K. GANESH BABU S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26/1-1, CHAITHANYA, 2ND CROSS, M.T. LAYOUT, BEHIND MES COLLEGE, 13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 053. ALSO AT: NO.23, GROUND FLOOR, MODEL LIC HOUSING COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: 1 . MRS.KUSUMA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI S.VENKATESHWARLU, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, MR.S.SRAVAN CHAITANYA, S/O LATE MR. S.VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189/A, MLA COLONY ROAD, NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034. 2 . MR. B.G. CHENNAPPA. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 3 . MR. HARSHA VARDHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.17/2 OMKARNAGAR, GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 4 . DR.HAFEEZUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ. 5 . MR. SHAFEEQUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 599, MINA, 2ND MAIN, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034. 3 6 . MR.NAZEEBUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 7 . MRS. KAMARUNNISA AGED ABOUT 99 YEARS, D/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ, W/O LATE ABDUL GANI. 8 . MRS. FARHATH HAYATH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ, W/O LATE C.R. MOHD HAYATH. RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 9 . MR. SYED AFROZ, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 10 . MR. SYED SHERAZ, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE. 11 . MRS. SAIRA RAFATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE AND LATE MRS. RAHAMATHUNNISA, 4 RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 12 . MRS. SHIVAMMA K., W/O LATE MR. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT BHAVIHAL VILLAGE, NARAGANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE – 577 534. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.ANUSHA B.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO 12 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025) ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.XXVIII FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I. A NO.XXIX FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND I.A.NO. XXX FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE C/C V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S NO.8729/2004 FURNISHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. NOS.XXVIII FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, I.A NO.XXIX FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND I.A.NO.XXX FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S NO.8729/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE C/C V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S NO. 8729/2004 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-F, G AND H. 5 IN WRIT PETITION No.19133 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR.K.GANESH BABU, S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26/1-1, CHAITHANYA 2ND CROSS, M.T. LAYOUT, BEHIND MES COLLEGE, 13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 053. ALSO AT: NO. 23, GROUND FLOOR, MODEL LIC HOUSING COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . MRS.KUSUMA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI S.VENKATESHWARLU, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, MR.S.SRAVAN CHAITANYA, S/O LATE MR.S.VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189/A, MLA COLONY ROAD, NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034. 2 . MR.B.G.CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 3 . MR.HARSHA VARDHAN 6 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.17/2 OMKARNAGAR, GANKAL VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 4 . DR. HAFEEZUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ. 5 . MR. SHAFEEQUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 599, MINA, 2ND MAIN, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034. 6 . MR. NAZEEBUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 7 . MRS. KAMARUNNISA AGED ABOUT 99 YEARS, D/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ, W/O LATE ABDUL GANI. 8 . MRS. FARHATH HAYATH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE A. ABDUL AZEEZ W/O LATE C.R. MOHD HAYATH, 7 RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 9 . MR. SYED AFROZ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 10 . MR. SYED SHERAZ, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE. 11 . MRS. SAIRA RAFATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE AND LATE MRS. RAHAMATHUNNISA, RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. 12 . MRS. SHIVAMMA K., W/O LATE MR. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT BHAVIHAL VILLAGE NARAGANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE – 577 534. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.ANUSHA B.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) 8 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.XXXI FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17, I.A NO.XXXII FILED UNDER SECTION 151 CPC AND XXXIII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14 CPC IN O.S NO.8729/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE C/C V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE FURNISHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The parties to the lis in both these cases are common. Both are preferred by defendant No.11 in O.S.No.8729 of 2004. In both these petitions, the petitioner calls in question an order dated 19-06-2025 passed on the applications filed by the petitioner/defendant No.11 and the 1st respondent/plaintiff, whereby the concerned Court allows the applications filed by the plaintiff and rejects the applications filed by the petitioner/defendant No.11. For the sake of brevity, facts as obtaining in W.P.No.17889 of 2025 would be narrated. 9 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 2.1. A suit in O.S.No.8729 of 2004 is instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of site No.52, which the plaintiff originally claims to be situated in Sy.No.3/3B of Ganakal Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Subsequently, the plaintiff amends the plaint and changes the schedule to be referred to as Sy.No.17/2A and seeks for a declaratory relief declaring her to be the owner and in possession of the suit property. The petitioner was not originally arrayed as a defendant. He comes into the picture pursuant to an application filed, which was allowed on 02-01-2013 arraigning him as defendant No.11. 2.2. It is the averment in the petition that the suit was twice dismissed for non-prosecution, on 03-09-2007 and again on 10-10-2014 and is restored pursuant to the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed as against the dismissal of the miscellaneous application filed for its restoration. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the plaintiff or the defence of 10 defendant No.11. In the said suit, both the petitioner and the 1st respondent file applications which are differently numbered. 2.3. The petitioner/11th defendant files an application seeking recall of D.W.1 and reopening of the case for his further examination-in-chief. Likewise, an application comes to be filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff again under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to recall P.W.1 for her further chief-examination and to place on record a survey sketch, which was to be brought on record long ago. The concerned Court, by the impugned orders dated 19- 06-2025, allows the applications filed by the plaintiff and rejects the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.11 on the same day. It is these orders of different action, which drives the petitioner-defendant No.11 in both these cases. In W.P.No.17889 of 2025, the defendant No.11 calls in question the order insofar as it rejects the applications and in W.P.No.19133 of 2025, it calls in question the order allowing the applications of the plaintiff for production of documents. 11 3. Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt Nalina Mayegowda, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Angad Kamath takes this Court through the order impugned seeking to demonstrate that the suit is of the year 2004, the survey sketch that the plaintiff is wanting to be produced is already produced in a collateral proceeding. It is therefore only a ruse to drag the proceedings further. He would submit that the applications filed by the plaintiff were bereft of reasons for it to be allowed. If the applications of the 1st respondent/plaintiff are allowed notwithstanding the fact that they were bereft of reasons, the applications of the petitioner/11th defendant also should have merited consideration. He would therefore contend that the impugned orders are on the face of it illegal, perverse and overlook a long standing pattern of procedural abuse. 5. Per-contra, the learned senior counsel Smt Nalina Mayegowda seeks to project that though the said survey sketch was already a part of the collateral proceedings, it needed to be 12 produced in the subject suit. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court allowing production of a document. She would contend that delay in production of document, in such cases, should not be strictly construed, owing to the necessity of production of the document. She would seek dismissal of both the petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue in contending that if the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.11 is hit by delay, the application filed by the plaintiff also is hit by delay. The concerned Court could not have rejected one and allowed the other. Therefore, he would submit that the petitions be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The genesis of the suit dates back to 21 years. It is instituted in 2004 in O.S.No.8729 of 2004. Since the entire issue has now triggered 13 from two orders passed on the same date, in a series of interlocutory applications, which is the common challenge in both these petitions, I deem it appropriate to notice the said orders. The order impugned in W.P.No.17889 of 2025 dated 19-06-2025 reads as follows: “ORDERS ON I.A.No.XXVIII TO XXX The 11th defendant has filed I.A. No.XXVIII under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No. XXIX under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking order to recall DW1 and reopen the case for his further chief-examination. The 11th defendant has filed I.A. No XXX under Order VIII Rule 1 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to permit the 11th defendant to produce the documents at this stage of the proceedings. 2. In support of I.A.No.XXVIII to I.A.No.XXX, the 11th defendant has filed his affidavit. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff filed common objections to I.A.No. XXVIII to I.A.No.XXX praying to dismiss I.A. No. XXVIII to I. XXX. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Smt.Nalina Mayegowda appearing for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the 11th defendant. Perused the materials available on record. 5. The following point that has been arisen for my consideration: Whether the 11th defendant has shown sufficient reason to recall DW1, to reopen the case for his further examination-in-chief and to permit the 11th defendant to produce the additional documents at this stage of the proceedings? If so, what order? 14 6. My answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following: REASONS 7. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration of title of the plaintiff on the suit schedule property and permanent injunction. Defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 11 have filed their written statement. The issues are framed. The plaintiff and the 11th defendant have produced their oral and documentary evidences. When the case is posted for arguments on merits, the 11th defendant came up with the present applications seeking permission of this Court to produce 10 documents and to admit them in the evidence of DW1, to recall DW1 and to reopen the case for his further examination-in- chief. While considering the present applications, the Court shall keep in its mind two factors. One is the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced before the Court and another is the satisfactory reasons for non-production of the said documents at the earliest stage of the proceedings. 8. The documents sought to be produced by the 11th defendant at this stage of the proceedings are the office copy of the Application filed seeking Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Counter File of the Postal Order, copy of the Postal Order, the Information dated 07.09.2013 along with copies of four RTC Extracts, two computerized RTC Extracts, Receipt dated 13.04.2005 and copy of 11 E-Sketch. 9. With regard to the relevancy of the documents now sought to be produced by the 11th defendant, I perused the materials available on record and the documents sought to be produced before this Court. 10. The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing Sy. No. 17/2A of Ganakal Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The plaintiff is claiming her title on the said property. The contention of the plaintiff is that the property purchased by her is situated in Sy No.17/2A of Ganakal Village. But, in the Sale Deed dated 24.11.1994 executed by her vendors in her favour, the property number is mentioned as Sy.No.3/3B of Ganakal Village. The copies of the RTC Extracts obtained by the 11th defendant through Right to Information Act which produced before this Court along with the present applications are with 15 regard to the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 17/1E, 17/1G1 and 17/1J of Ganakal Village. They are not in respect of the subject matters involved in the present suit. There are no pleadings by the 11th defendant with regard to the above properties. The said documents are not throwing any light on the other evidences produced on the issues involved in this suit. Therefore, the office copy of the Application filed seeking Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Counter File of the Postal Order, copy of the Postal Order and the Information dated 07.09.2013 along with copies of four RTC Extracts are not relevant documents to be produced in this case. 11. The 11th defendant has produced two computerized RTC Extracts along with these applications. They are in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.3/3B for the period 2004-05 and 2024- 25. Though, they are in respect of the property involved in this case, they are not relevant documents because, the plaintiff has already produced the RTC Extract of the said land for the year 2003-2004 and another RTC Extract is for the current period. 12. The other two documents produced by the 11th defendant are a Receipt dated 13.04.2005 issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Sub-Division Bengaluru for payment of License Fee of Rs.103/-and the Xerox copy of 11 (E) Sketch. The 11th defendant has not produced the certified copy of the 11(E) Sketch issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Sub-Division Bengaluru upon receipt of Fee through Receipt dated 13.04.2005. Without production of the certified copy of 11(E) Sketch issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Sub-Division Bengaluru, both Receipt dated 13.04.2005 and the copy of the 11(E) Sketch are not admissible in evidence. 13. With regard to the reason assigned in the affidavit filed by the 11th defendant in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.XXX is concerned, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.XXX, the 11th defendant has stated that as a result of the continuous filing of interlocutory applications and parallel proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the 11th defendant was compelled to divert his attention and recourse towards defending the said applications; therefore, he could not devote adequate time to fully trace, organize and file all the relevant documentary evidences during his examination-in-chief and the 16 documents sought to be produced were recently traced upon a detailed review of property records. 14. Admittedly, except the computerized RTC Extracts produced by the 11th defendant, the other documents along with the present applications were in the custody of the 11th defendant before he filed his affidavit by way of examination-in- chief of DW1. Therefore, the above reason is not satisfactory to permit the 11th defendant to produce the documents at this stage of the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the 11th defendant has not shown sufficient reason to recall DW1, to reopen the case for his further examination-in-chief and to permit the 11th defendant to produce the additional documents at this stage of the proceedings. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDERS I.A. No. XXVIII under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I.A.No.XXIX under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No.XXX under Order VIII Rule 1 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the 11th defendant are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” The order impugned in W.P.No.19133 of 2025 dated 19-06-2025 reads as follows: “ORDERS ON Ι.Α.ΝΟ. ΧΧΧΙ ΤΟ ΧΧΧΙΙΙ The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.XXXI under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No.XXXII under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking order to recall PW1 and reopen the case for her further chief-examination. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.XXXIII under Order VII Rule 14 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to permit the plaintiff to produce the documents at this stage of the proceedings. 17 2. In support of I.A.No.XXXI to I.A.No.XXXIII, the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff has filed his affidavit, Along with I.A.No.XXXIII, the plaintiff has produced 11 documents. 3. The learned Counsel for the 11th defendant filed common objections to I.A.No.ΧΧΧΙ to Ι.Α.Νo.XXXIII praying to dismiss I.A. No. XXXI to I.A.No.XXXIII. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Nalina Mayegowda appearing for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the 11th defendant on I.A.No.XXXI to I.A.No.XXXIII. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Ram Rati V/s Mange Ram, (Dead) through legal representatives and others [(2016) 11 SCC 296]. 6. Perused the materials available on record. 7. The following point that has been arisen for my consideration: Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient reason to recall PW1, to reopen the case for her further examination-in-chief and to permit the plaintiff to produce the additional documents at this stage of the proceedings? If so, what order? 8. My answer to the above point is in the Affirmative for the following: REASONS 9. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration of title of the plaintiff on the suit schedule property and permanent injunction. Defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 11 have filed their written statement. The issues are framed. The plaintiff and the 11th defendant have produced their oral and documentary evidences. When the case is posted for arguments on merits, the plaintiff came up with the present applications seeking permission of this Court to produce 11 documents and to admit them in the evidence of PW1, to recall PW1 and to reopen the case for her further examination-in-chief. 18 10. The documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff at this stage of the proceedings are the online copies of RTI Application dated 20.01.2025 along with acknowledgment through E-mail, online First Appeal before RTI Appellate Authority, online Second Appeal before Karnataka Information Commission, original Acknowledgment dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru and the documents viz., the copies of the application of the plaintiff, Acknowledgment, Office Note, Intimation Notice dated 21.04.2006, Spot Inspection Notice dated 08.06.2006 and Survey Sketch issued through RTI along with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. In the affidavit filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff in support of I.A. No. XXXIII, he has stated that in view of the doubts created by the defendants, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk and sought for survey of the suit schedule property as per the boundaries in her Sale Deed. Pursuant to the said letter, the Taluk Surveyor went to the spot, identified the land in the possession of the plaintiff as per the boundaries shown in the registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.1994 and found that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.17/2A of Ganakal Village. In order to substantiate the said fact, the present documents are filed. In view of the order passed in W.P.No. 29654/2024, this Court summoned the Taluk Surveyor to produce the documents. To Taluk Surveyor appeared before this Court and prayed to time to produce the documents before this Court. In view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for speedy disposal of this suit within stipulated time, the plaintiff gave up the examination of the Taluk Surveyor to avoid the delay in the proceedings. On 20.01.2025, the plaintiff filed online application for certified copies of the documents. But, the plaintiff did not received any response within 30 days, she preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. On 11.06.2025, she received the documents as per the order of the Second Appellate Authority and produced the said documents along with the present applications. 12. On careful reading of the statement of objections filed by the 11th defendant to the present applications, it appears that except the delay in producing the documents by the plaintiff without assigning proper reasons, no other valid grounds including the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced 19 in the present case on hand or shown. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the 11th defendant relying the copies of the documents that the plaintiff has already produced the said documents before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A.No.8808/2023 and now, the plaintiff is producing the same documents by obtaining them recently through the Right to Information Act. 13. While considering the present applications, the Court shall keep in its mind two factors. One is the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced before the Court and another is the satisfactory reasons for non-production of the said documents at the earliest stage of the proceedings. The plaintiff has produced the oral evidences of her GPA Holder on 22.04.2023. The plaintiff has produced the documentary evidences on 20.06.2013 and 10.09.2024. Along with the evidences of PW1, the plaintiff has not produced the documents sought to be produced at this stage of the proceedings. On perusal of the documents sought to be produced along with the present applications, it appears that they are relevant documents in the evidence of the plaintiff because, the said documents are in respect of the subject matter of this suit. They are obtained by the plaintiff recently through Right to Information Act. Though, the plaintiff has produced the similar documents before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A.No.8808/2023, it is uncertain from the materials available on record that on such documents produced before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka were certified copies of xerox copies of the said documents. 14. In a judgment relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Ram Rati V/s Mange Ram, (Dead) through legal representatives and others [(2016) 11 SCC 296) laid down the following principles of law: *14. The rigour under Rule 17, however, does not affect the inherent powers of the Court to pass the required orders for ends of justice to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination or cross-examination or even for production of fresh evidence. This power can 20 also be exercised at any stage of the suit, even after closure of evidence." 15. For the above reasons, the plaintiff has shown sufficient reason to recall PW1, to reopen the case for her further examination-in-chief and to permit the plaintiff to produce the additional documents at this stage of the proceedings. Hence, I answer the above point in the Affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDERS Ι.Α.ΝΟ.ΧΧΧΙ under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I.A.No.XXXII under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Fode and I.A.No.XXXIII under Order VII Rule 14 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff are hereby allowed. The documents filed along with I.A.No.XXXIII by the plaintiff are taken on record. PW1 is recalled and the case is reopened for the further examination-in-chief of PW1. No order as to cost.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court observes that, while considering the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 so filed, one by the plaintiff and the other by the 11th defendant, what is to be seen is whether it satisfies two factors. One, whether it is relevant, and the other whether it is marred by delay. Both these are answered in favour of the plaintiff and are answered against the defendant No.11. While allowing the plaintiff’s application, the concerned Court 21 erroneously rejects the objections taken by the petitioner/defendant No. 11 and records that, though the plaintiff had produced similar documents before this Court in M.F.A. No.8808/2023, much prior to the RTI Application, it was uncertain whether the said documents were certified copies or photocopies. Therefore, the order of the concerned Court is undoubtedly bereft of justifiable reasons for allowing one application and rejecting the other. 9. At this juncture it is important to notice the conduct of the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 before the concerned Court while obtaining the impugned order. 9.1. The entire premise on which the plaintiff obtains the impugned order before the concerned Court was that she discovered new documentary evidence, which she could not obtain before at the time of filing of the suit, despite exercising due diligence. To establish this claim before the concerned Court, she states that she obtained the survey records of the years 2005-2007 for the very first time on 11-06-2025, through an RTI Application and represents before the concerned Court that there was no delay 22 on her part in producing the records upon receiving them. However, the official RTI correspondences as obtained by the defendant No.11/Petitioner narrate a different story altogether. The RTI reply from the Assistant Commissioner dated 23-06-2025 shows that the Tahsildar was directed to furnish the documents/survey records only if the applicant was present before him. This clearly indicates that the plaintiff had not received the documents on 11-06-2025 despite swearing that she had received the same. 9.2. The plaintiff also fails to provide any reasons for her failure to obtain the certified copies of the survey records of the year 2007, until the year 2024, all of which were public documents. Infact, the certified copies of these survey records which the plaintiff claims to discover in June, 2025 were produced by the plaintiff before this Court in W.P. No.29554/2024. This establishes that the plaintiff was in possession of these documents since 2024, all of which was suppressed and withheld by the plaintiff before the concerned Court. According to the plaintiff the reason for reopening the evidence was to prove the genuineness of the survey sketch 23 which was already exhibited as evidence in Ex.P5. However, the same sketch in the newly discovered survey records materially diverges from Ex.P5, despite both the sketches relating to the same file number in the said records. This indicates that the Ex.P5 filed by the plaintiff was fabricated as it did not match the official records and demonstrates that the plaintiff was instead attempting to mislead the court by introducing a new sketch at a later stage of the trial and portray it as corroborative to Ex.P5. The concerned Court ought to have noticed all these facts before allowing the application of the plaintiff filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. 10. I therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the line of law, in this regard, to allow an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 or otherwise. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff has relied on two judgments of the Apex Court, one to buttress the submission that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only supervisory and not original and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the allowing of the plaintiff’s application. Insofar as the rejection of the application of defendant No.11, the plaintiff 24 relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.K. VELUSAMY v. N. PALANISAMY1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. 11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. 1 (2011) 11 SCC 275 25 12. The respondent contended that Section 151 cannot be used for reopening evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition. We however agree that Section 151 of the Code cannot be routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses. The scope of Section 151 has been explained by this Court in several decisions [see Padam Sen v. State of U.P. [AIR 1961 SC 218 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 322] , Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527] , Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] , Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava [AIR 1966 SC 1899] , Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee [(1970) 1 SCC 732] , Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1976) 1 SCC 120 : AIR 1976 SC 1152] , Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. CIT [(1977) 1 SCC 508 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 208 : AIR 1977 SC 1348] , National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara [(2005) 2 SCC 256] and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj [(2010) 8 SCC 1 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 212] ]. We may summarise them as follows: (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that 26 matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature. (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. 13. The Code earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17-A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence. It enabled the court to permit a party to produce any evidence even at a late stage, after the conclusion of his evidence if he satisfied the court that even after the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced by him when he was leading the evidence. That provision was deleted with effect from 1-7-2002. The deletion of the said provision does not mean that no evidence can be received at all, after a party closes his evidence. It only means 27 that the amended structure of the Code found no need for such a provision, as the amended Code contemplated little or no time gap between completion of evidence and commencement and conclusion of arguments. Another reason for its deletion was the misuse thereof by the parties to prolong the proceedings under the pretext of discovery of new evidence. 14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for reopening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that once arguments are commenced, there could be no reopening of evidence or recalling of any witness. This contention is raised by extending the convention that once arguments are concluded and the case is reserved for judgment, the court will not entertain any interlocutory application for any kind of relief. The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly. The convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket 28 formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation recognised with reference to exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code. Be that as it may. In this case, the applications were made before the conclusion of the arguments. 16. Neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the question whether it was a fit case for exercise of discretion under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. They have not considered whether the evidence sought to be produced would either assist in clarifying the evidence led on the issues or lead to a just and effective adjudication. Both the courts have mechanically dismissed the application only on the ground that the matter was already at the stage of final arguments and the application would have the effect of delaying the proceedings. 17. The appellant-defendant has taken a consistent stand in his reply notice, written statement and evidence that the agreement of sale was executed to secure a loan of Rs. 1,50,000, as the respondent insisted upon execution and registration of such agreement. If after the completion of recording of evidence, PW 1 and PW 2 had admitted during conversations that the amount paid was not advance towards sale price, but only a loan and the agreement of sale was obtained to secure the loan, that would be material evidence which came into existence subsequent to the recording of the depositions, having a bearing on the decision and will also clarify the evidence already led on the issues. 18. According to the appellant, the said evidence came into existence only on 27-10-2008 and 31-10-2008, and he prepared the applications and filed them at the earliest, that is, on 11-11-2008. As the defendant could not have produced this material earlier and if the said evidence, if found valid and admissible, would assist the court to consider the evidence in the correct perspective or to render justice, it was a fit case for exercising the discretion under Section 151 of the Code. The courts below have not applied their minds to the question whether such evidence will be relevant and whether the ends of justice require permission to let in such evidence. Therefore the order calls for interference. 29 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non- production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. 20. If the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that the object of the application is merely to protract the proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record, the court may also listen to the recording before granting or rejecting the application.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/11th defendant has also relied on several judgments to contend that filing of repeated 30 applications should not result in endless dragging of proceedings. He would also place reliance upon the very same judgment upon which the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent has placed reliance upon in the case of K.K. VELUSAMY supra. 12. The Apex Court, at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment supra, holds that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC is not intended to be used routinely and must not be allowed for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite the trial. Further, if the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so, the court should reject such application. 13. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, as afore-quoted, the applications of the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed after 21 years of the institution of the suit, for production of a document that was already in existence long ago and produced in the contemporaneous suits, ought not to have been allowed by the concerned Court, which had the effect of throwing open the entire proceedings all over again. If the concerned Court is wanting to 31 reject the applications of the petitioner on that very ground, the applications of the 1st respondent also ought to have merited the same rejection. Therefore, the order of the concerned Court warrants interference. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) W.P.No.19133 of 2025 stands allowed. (ii) The order dated 19-06-2025 insofar as it allows the applications filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff is set aside. The applications so filed stands rejected. (iii) W.P.No.17889 of 2025 stands rejected. Interim order, if any operating, shall stand dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ