- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 50928 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 50977 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 50928/2019: BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDA S/O VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O. JAKKASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.) AND: DR. PRIYA DORAI RAJ D/O S. JOSEPH DORAI RAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT RAMONA NO.23 SERPENTINE STREET FACING LEONARD LANE RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 025. REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI S. JOSEPH DORAI RAJ S/O. LATE SAMUL AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO. 12/2, OLD NO.13 RAMONA LEONARD LANE RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 025. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.J. KAMATH, ADV.) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 10.10.2019, PASSED ON I.A.NOs. 23 AND 24 IN O.S.NO.3277/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNX-E. IN WP NO. 50977/2019: BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDA S/O VENAKTAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O JAKKASANDRA BEGURU HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 114. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.) AND: MOHAN DORAI RAJ S/O S. JOSEPH DORAI RAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A RAMONA NO.23 SERPENTINE STREET FACING LEONARD LANE RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 025 REPT BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI S. JOSEPHDORAI RAJ S/O LATE SAMUL AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.12/2, OLD NO.13 RAMONA LEONARD LANE RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 025. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K J KAMATH.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED ON IA NOs. 16 TO 18 IN O.S.NO.3278/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNX-F). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. In these two writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is similar, and therefore, the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. O.S.No.3277/2012 and O.S.No.3278/2012 are filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court by the respondent to these writ petitions. Petitioner herein is the sole defendant in the aforesaid suits. Immediately after the evidence of DW-1 was recorded, two applications viz., IA.nos.23 & 24 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order VIII Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 CPC, respectively, were filed by the defendant in O.S.No.3277/2012, and three applications viz., IA.nos.16, 17 & 18 under Section 151 CPC, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order VIII Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 CPC, respectively, were filed by the defendant in O.S.No.3278/2012, with a prayer to permit him to produce two additional documents and also to lead - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 additional evidence. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide two separate orders dated 10.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.3277/2012 and O.S.No.3278/2012, had rejected the said applications and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event the petitioner is permitted to produce the additional documents, no hardship would be caused to the other side, and on the other hand, the defendant's case is likely to be prejudiced in the event he is not permitted to produce additional documents which are relevant. He submits that on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, the additional documents shall be produced and on the same day, the defendant shall also lead his further evidence without seeking any adjournment before the Trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the petition and submits that the Trial Court having found that the documents sought to be produced are irrelevant for adjudicating the dispute in the present suits, has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 rightly rejected the applications. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petitions. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is found that after the defendant was examined as DW-1 before the Trial Court in the aforesaid two suits, he had filed separate applications in both the suits seeking re-opening of the case, permitting him to produce additional documents and also to lead further evidence for the purpose of marking the documents. The Trial Court has rejected the prayers made by the defendant in the said applications, on the ground that the documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit on merits. The said approach of the Trial Court cannot be justified and the Trial Court could not have expressed its opinion on the merits of the documents and ought not to have recorded a finding whether the said documents are relevant or irrelevant at the time of considering the application seeking permission to produce additional documents. Since the petitioner has undertaken to produce the documents and mark the same on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that if these writ petitions are allowed, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 same would not only serve the ends of justice, but it would also amount to giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the orders impugned in these two writ petitions are liable to be set aside. However, since the applications were filed at a belated stage, the prayer made in the applications is required to be granted by imposing suitable costs on the defendant. Accordingly, the following order: (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed on IA.nos.23 & 24 in O.S.No.3277/2012 by the Court of XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the prayers made in IA.nos.23 & 24 are granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent herein before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. (iii) The impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed on IA.nos.16, 17 & 18 in O.S.No.3278/2012 by the Court of XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the prayers made in IA.nos.16, 17 & 18 are granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47839 WP No. 50928 of 2019 C/W WP No. 50977 of 2019 petitioner to the respondent herein before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. 6. It is made clear that the defendant shall produce the additional documents before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing and on the same date, he shall also lead further evidence for the purpose of marking the said documents without seeking any further adjournment. 7. Since the suits are of the year 2012, endeavour shall be made by the Trial Court to dispose of the suits on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK