- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 34306 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, O/A No.78, DIAGONAL ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI DAYANAND. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KARTHIK RAGHAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O SRI N V VIJAYARAGHAVAN. 2. SRI SHARATH RAGHAVAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SRI N V VIJAYARAGHAVAN. 3. SRI VIKRAM VENU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O SRI KRISH VENOO GEORGE 4. MS. MEERA VENU, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O SRI KRISH VENOO GEORGE Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 5. MS. VARSHA KRISH AGED 26 YEARS, D/O SRI JAYANT KRISH. 6. MS. VEENA KRISH, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O SRI JAYAN KRISH. LOCAL ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS No.164, SOUTH CROSS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUKUND S. HARI AGED 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI R. SRIHARI, R/A No.243, 32ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K. M. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DWARAKA NATH H. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 ON I.A.No.14 PASSED BY XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-8) IN O.S.No.6586/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Vishwanath Kanavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.M. Archana, learned counsel representing Sri. H.S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. This writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.6586/2019 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, assailing the order dated 27.11.2024 passed on I.A. No. 14, whereby the request of the defendant to summon certain documents in the custody of the Senior Sub-Registrar has been rejected. 3. The plaintiffs - respondents herein filed the original suit seeking eviction of the defendant - petitioner and delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property in their favour as well as a direction for payment of arrears of rent and damages. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and disputing the title of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 plaintiffs, which they claimed under a Will executed by late L.P. Srivatsa. The Trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiffs led their evidence in examination-in-chief. During the course of cross-examination, the defendant filed I.A. No.14 under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking summons to produce certain documents from the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing their objections. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, rejected the said application. 5. Sri. Vishwanath Kanavi, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, submits that the respondents-plaintiffs have instituted the suit for eviction based on a registered Will dated 06.08.2010 executed by one Sri. L.P. Srivatsa. It is submitted that the defendant was a tenant under the said Sri. L.P. Srivatsa and has disputed the genuineness of the Will on various grounds. Learned counsel contends that the defendant cannot be evicted by an incompetent person on the strength of a tainted Will. It is further submitted that Sri. L.P.Srivatsa was suffering from multiple ailments, including - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 Parkinson’s disease, during the relevant period. The documents collected by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of identifying the executor and the attesting witnesses to the Will are, therefore, highly relevant. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court, without recording any finding on the relevancy of these documents, rejected the application on hyper-technical grounds. It is further submitted that when the Trial Court itself has observed that such documents can be summoned at the stage of the defendant's evidence, there was no justifiable reason to deny the request at the stage of the plaintiffs’ evidence. 6. Smt. K.M. Archana, learned counsel representing Sri. H.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs, submits that the Trial Court has not rejected the application in its entirety, but has granted liberty to the defendant to file a similar application at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the reasons assigned in the application are neither supported by nor based on the pleadings. It is contended that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 the said application has been filed only with an intention to delay the eviction proceedings. 7. Considered the submissions advanced on both sides and perused the writ petition papers. 8. The petitioner-defendant claims to be a tenant of the suit schedule property under Sri. L.P. Srivatsa, the absolute owner. The respondents-plaintiffs claim title in their favour under a registered Will dated 06.08.2010. In the averments made in the application, the defendant has alleged that the plaintiffs are fictitious persons, as they are not related to Sri. L.P. Srivatsa. It is further pleaded that the said Will was concocted by one Mukund S. Hari, who is acting as the GPA holder of the plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffs contend that the genuineness of the Will has been disputed for the first time in the impugned application, such a pleading is also found in the written statement. 9. As observed by the Trial Court, the burden of proving the Will lies upon the plaintiffs. The present application seeks to summon the identity proofs of the person executing the Will as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 well as of the attesting witnesses thereto. These documents are not available with either of the parties and are in the custody of the office of the Sub-Registrar where the Will was registered. The said documents are relevant for adjudication of the issues in the original suit. Though the Trial Court has acknowledged the relevancy of these documents, it has rejected the application on a hyper-technical ground, holding that a similar application may be filed at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence. 10. No doubt, such an exercise can be undertaken at the appropriate stage; however, if the said documents are required to be confronted to the plaintiffs’ witnesses, it would necessitate recalling their evidence, thereby leading to a cumbersome procedure. The prejudice that may be caused to the plaintiffs if the documents are summoned at this stage is neither demonstrated nor forthcoming. On the contrary, placing such documents on record at this stage, if required to be confronted to the plaintiffs’ witnesses, would aid in the effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 11. The finding of the Trial Court that such documents can be obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act is not a justifiable ground to reject the application. The further finding that the very same documents can be summoned at the stage of the defendant’s evidence, and if necessary, be confronted to the plaintiffs’ witnesses, is also unsustainable. This Court is of the considered view that, having regard to the nature of the dispute and the relevance of the documents sought to be summoned, the present writ petition merits consideration. 12. Accordingly, the following; Order (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 27.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.14 in O.S.No.6586/2019 by the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, is set aside. (iii) I.A.No.14 stands allowed. (iv) Considering that the suit for eviction is pending from 2019 and the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant is indefinitely delaying - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40241 WP No. 34306 of 2024 the proceedings, the trial Court is requested to expedite and conclude the trial not later than six *months from the date of production of copy of this order. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 *Corrections carried out vide Court Order dated 07.11.2025