- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27267 WP No. 20284 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20284 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VISHWANATH V.B, S/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, NO.910, 15TH D MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 79. 2. SRI. ABHINANDAN T.R. S/O SRI. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. NO.91, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KONANAKUNTE CROSS, BENGALURU - 62 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI . VISHWANATH. V.B. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KANTHARAJU S/O KRISHNAPPA B.C. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO. 52, "DIPAK NILAYA", AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 36. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27267 WP No. 20284 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 16-6-2025 PASSED ON IA-11,12, 13 IN O.S.NO. 7354/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, BENGALURU (CCH NO.45) IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., 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 petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.7354/2014 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking production of certain documents. 2. Heard Shri Viswanath Sabarad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, institutes a suit for declaration and possession and cancellation of a particular sale - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27267 WP No. 20284 of 2025 deed. What has driven the plaintiffs to this Court, at this juncture is rejection of an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC seeking production of four documents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that those documents were already available at the time of institution of the suit or immediately, thereafter. Therefore, the objections, the respondent took is as follows: "All the 03 applications are frivolous and vexatious and there is total abuse of the process of the court by the Plaintiffs and the 03 applications are filed at the stage when the suit is at the stage of final argument and admittedly, the above suit is about 11 years old and there is no justification for the Plaintiffs to file the present applications for various reliefs, particularly the documents that he intends to produce now are obtained by the Plaintiff on 30/11/2015 (about 10 years ago), 09/03/2020 (about 5 years ago), 22/12/2021 (about 4 years ago). 17/02/2020 (more than 5 years ago). When such being the case, the big questions that arises before any reasonable man is why the Plaintiff did not produce those documents, when admittedly they were in his custody having taken on different dates as aforesaid." 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would reiterate the objections so filed contending that the three documents that are sought to be filed are all between 5 years to 10 years old, which at all times was available to the petitioners. At the fag end of the proceedings, the subject application comes to be filed and therefore, the concerned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27267 WP No. 20284 of 2025 Court has rightly rejected those applications. The order of the concerned Court rejecting the application reads as follows: "I.A. No.11 is filed by the Plaintiffs U/sec.151 of CPC to reopen the case from the stage of arguments to lead further chief of PW.1. I.A. No.12 is filed u/O 18 R 17 of CPC to recall PW.1 for further chief examination. I.A. No.13 is filed u/O 7 R 14 of CPC for production of documents. The Defendant has filed detailed objections to the applications contending that the documents sought to be produced and marked are obtained by the Plaintiff about 4-5 years ago and whereas the documents produced on 09.06.2025 that too without assigning any valid reasons when the suit is set down for final arguments and the arguments of the Defendants is over. It is further contended that the documents. sought to be marked are irrelevant to the case and those documents are not necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the lis. The documents sought to be marked are certified copies of the sale deeds and other revenue records. As could be seen from the affidavit, absolutely nothing is stated about the of the relevancy documents to the case on hand. Admittedly, the applications are filed at the fag end of the suit that too after the arguments of the Defendant is completed in the case. What prevented the Plaintiff to plead in the affidavit as to the relevancy of the documents is not known. The Order Sheet further discloses that even after getting several adjournments to address arguments on main suit, the Plaintiff has come up with these applications even without valid reasons for delay in production of documents. evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted. In the absence of relevancy, any amount of documents is of no consequences. The suit is of the year 2014 and one among the old suits. It appears to this court that the applications are filed to protract the proceedings. PW.1 was examined - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27267 WP No. 20284 of 2025 during 2023. Hence, assessed from any angle, this court is of the considered opinion that the I.A. No.11 to 13 deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed. For arguments of the Plaintiff's on main suit as a last chance by 18.06.2025." With the aforesaid observations, finding no perversity in the order for this Court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more so, in the light of the fact that the application is preferred at the stage of arguments, the petition stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69 CT: BHK