- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. G.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE V.GOPALAPPA, R/AT NO.102/1, SHAKTHI VINAYAKA ROAD, OPP. PANCHAYATH OFFICE, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARINATH.M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R.SRINIVASA SINCE DEAD BY HIR LR’S SMT. S.NIRMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE R.SRINIVASA 2. SRI. S.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE R.SRINIVASA, 3. SRI. S.KUMARA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE R.SRINIVAS, 4. SRI. S.NAGESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE R.SRINIVAS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT: BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERAGHATAA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 076. 5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S SRI. MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O BELATHUR VENKATAPPA, 6. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O MUNIRAJ, 7. SRI. MADHU KIRAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O MUNIRAJ, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO.144, 1ST MAIN, VARTHUR SIDDAPURA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU-560 066. 8. SRI. R.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, 9. SRI. R.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9 ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERHTATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 10. SMT. M.RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O SRINIVASA, R/AT NO.24/18, 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, I PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078. 11. SRI. M.N.S.KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O M.NANJUNDAIAH, R/AT NO.981, 18TH MAIN, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N.ASHWATHNARAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; V/O DTD: 05.04.2021, NOTICE TO R8 TO R11 DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET-ASIDE THE COMMON ORDERS DTD 20.03.2021 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-7, AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.10360/2005 IN DISMISSING THE UN-NUMBERED 3 IAs I.E., IA FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, IA FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE-17 OF CPC AND IA FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE-1(3) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC WHICH ARE FILED FOR REOPEN THE CASE, RECALLING THE DW-1 TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE AND LEAVE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS 1 TO 9 BY CONDONING THE DELAY BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 20.03.2021 on I.As in O.S.No.10360/2005, Sri.R.Srinivas Vs. Sri.R.Narayan and others, passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-7) at Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the three applications filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4: (i) Application under Section 151 of CPC which sought permission of the Court to re-open the case; (ii) Application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC which sought permission to re-call D.W.2(petitioner/defendant No.4) for leading further evidence; and (iii) Application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit the petitioner/defendant No.4 to produce eleven additional documents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 2. The brief facts are that respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, declaration and injunction in respect of the ‘A’ schedule properties. One of the prayers in the suit as filed was for a declaration that sale deeds dated 25.02.2003 and 28.03.2006 which were executed by the third defendant in favour of the fourth defendant and by the second defendant in favour of the fifth defendant respectively, are not binding on the plaintiffs’ share. A further prayer was sought for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from alienating the ‘B’ schedule property. 3. This Court has heard the parties. 4. So far as concerns the application filed under Section 151 of CPC, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.4 submits that the prayer in this application is covered by the prayer in the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC. Thus, he does not wish to press this petition qua the said application. 5. However, it is not disputed that these three applications were filed after the case was fixed for final arguments after the trial in the matter had been concluded. The learned Trial Court in the Impugned Order gave a finding that on 08.07.2019, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 D.W.2 has been cross-examined and the evidence was closed. Thereafter, D.W.2 [wrongly written as P.W.2 in para 11 of the Impugned Order] was recalled twice. The trial was concluded and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 18.11.2019. 6. It is apposite to extract paras 11, 12 and 13 of the Impugned Order in this behalf, which sets out as follows: “11. Order sheet goes to show that, on 08.07.2019, the DW.2 has been cross-examined fully, evidence was closed and case was posted for arguments. Thereafter, PW.2 has been recalled twice. After conclusion of the trial, the case was posted for arguments on 18.11.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff counsel took some adjournments and filed written arguments with ruling on 05.03.2020. Then, the counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4, sought time twice. 12. Later-on, due to Covid-19 case was adjourned to 10.09.2020. On that day also, the counsel for defendant remained absent. When the case was posted to 6.10.2020, On intimation to the defendant Nos.3 & 4, counsel for defendant Nos.3 & 4 present and sought time for arguments. As such, the case was posted to 5.10.2020. Again, case was called on 05.12.2020, the counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4 remained absent, despite case was posted for arguments of defendant Nos.3 and 4 as final opportunity and posted to 17.12.2020. On that day, the counsel for plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 & 4 present and sought time. 13. As such, again case was posted to 18.12.2020. Even, on that day also arguments not canvassed. The above said facts go to show that, as to how the case has been adjourned from time to time. Later-on, heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.3 and 4, when the case was set down for reply arguments, the present I.A's came to be filed.” [Emphasis supplied] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 7. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.4 submits that so far is concerns the application for production of documents, he was unable to file the documents earlier since these were only obtained by him in the year 2021. He further submits that he has got these documents from defendant No.1 when these were filed in another suit being O.S.No.1296/2009. 8. The learned Trial Court examined these contentions and found that the petitioner/defendant No.4 was unable to show why he had filed the documents at a belated stage. 9. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.4 submits that he would be satisfied if he be granted only one opportunity to recall D.W.2 for evidence. In addition, it is contended that the documents sought to be produced are the certified copies of the proceedings in another case and that he may be permitted to rely on them at the time of final arguments. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that he has no objection to this recall provided no further opportunity is granted. In addition, it is contended that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 he does not object if these documents are relied upon at the time of final hearing, since these are certified copies of the court proceedings. 10.1. So far as concerns the documents at Sl.Nos.1, 2 & 3, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that the witness of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs will produce these documents and that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs be permitted to cross-examine the witness on these documents. 11. The Court has examined the documents that have been sought to be placed on record. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has already stated that he has no objection to these documents since these are certified copies of legal proceedings in another case. These documents can be relied upon by the petitioner/defendant No.4 during the course of his final arguments. 12. The suit was filed in the year 2005 and was at the stage of final arguments when these applications were filed by the petitioner/defendants No.4, on 15.03.2021. Thereafter the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 matter remained pending since by an order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court, the proceedings before the Trial Court have been stayed. 13. Accordingly, and with consent of the parties, and in the interest of expediency, the following directions are passed: ORDER (i) The parties will appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.01.2026. (ii) The Petitioner/defendant No.4 [D.W.2] shall be present along with the original certified copies of the documents at 1, 2 and 3 in the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC. (iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and the other parties are permitted to cross-examine D.W.2. The petitioner/defendant No.4 is permitted to rely upon the documents at Sl.Nos.(IV) to (XI) in the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC which he has filed, during his final arguments. (iv) Needless to add, respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are at liberty take all objections qua the delay of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53965 WP No. 6794 of 2021 petitioner/defendant No.4 in producing the documents and the documents themselves, at the time of final arguments. (v) Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that they will not take any unnecessary adjournments before the Learned Trial Court. The parties are bound down by the statement made by their counsel. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, submits that he will not be filing any further application’s for recall in the matter. 14. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. However, in view of the fact the applications were filed belatedly, this Court deems it apposite to award costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant No.4 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs, before the learned Trial Court. The costs shall be paid by the petitioner/defendant No.4 on the next date of hearing. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA