- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22753 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O LATE CHOWDEGOWDA @ DOLLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT JETTIHUNDI VILLAGE, PARTI YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK – 571 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATHEESH T.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NARASIMHEGOWDA S/O LATE CHOWDEGOWDA @DOLLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SRI GOPALA S/O LATE CHOWDEGOWDA @ DOLLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT JETTIHUNDI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK – 571 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAI PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE -E IA NO. 22 IN OS NO. 218/2010 NOW OS NO. 2421/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSORE; ALLOW THE IA NO. 22 FILED FOR CALLING FOR WITNESS UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1 AND 6 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 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 petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow the application I.A.No.22 filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of CPC for examination of witness. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Satheesh T V, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jai Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Facts germane are as follows: The petitioner is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants. Owing to certain disturbance by the defendants over the property said to be owned by the petitioner, the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.218 of 2010 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of the CPC seeking summoning of an Advocate who had allegedly caused the legal notice on the petitioner in the subject suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the summoning of the Advocate is imperative, as he has denied issuance of the legal notice, but admits that the Respondents had visited his office. Therefore, the order is contrary to law is his submission. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would defend the order contending that causing of a legal notice has for the first time sprung in a suit after 15 years of its institution. Neither in the plaint, nor in any of the evidence, there was no mention about the legal notice by the plaintiff. Therefore, the concerned Court has rightly rejected the application is his submission. 5. The order of the concerned Court dated 08-07-2025 reads as follows: “ORDERS ON I. A. NO.22 FILED U/O XVI RULE 1 AND 6 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AND ORDERS ON I.A.NO.23 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC Counsel for plaintiff filed an application U/o 16 Rule 1 and 6 of CPC seeking to condone the delay if any in filing the witness list in support of his case. Further he files an application to reopen the case for examination of witness. 2. In the affidavits annexed to the applications, it is stated that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and the matter is set down for arguments. At the time of cross examination of DW1 and 2 the legal notice dated 13.03.2006 was not admitted by them and the legal notice issued by Sri. K. Ishwar Bhat, advocate on behalf of the defendant no.1 in respect of suit schedule property and the said legal notice is very necessary to prove his case. Hence examination of said advocate and identification of said legal notice before this court is necessary to prove his case. Hence prayed to allow the applications. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 3. Counsel for defendants filed objections stating that the application is not maintainable either under law or on facts and the contents of the affidavit annexed to the application are all false. The present suit is filed in the year 2010 and evidence commenced on 08.04.2013 and the plaintiff has not filed the witness list prior to commencement of evidence and he has filed present application after lapse of 12 years. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and not for the relief of specific performance and declaration. Examination of senior counsel K. Ishwar Bhat is not required in the present suit and the application filed to summon the witness in a suit for injunction is not necessary. Hence prayed to dismiss the applications. 4. Heard on both sides. 5. On the basis of application and objections, the following point would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the applicant has made out grounds to allow the application? 2. What order? 6. My answer to above points are as under: Point No. 1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1: This suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought to issue witness summons to K. Ishwar Bhat who had issued legal notice dated 13.03.2006. 8. Perused the materials available on record. The plaintiff has stated that he is in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of partition and he is cultivating the same and defendants are causing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 interference to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff by filing their written statement. There is no pleading in respect of issuance of legal notice dated 13.03.2006 either in plaint or in written statement and summoning the said witness is no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Any amount of evidence without pleadings is bad in law. No reasonable grounds made out to allow the applications. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative. 9. Point No. 2: For the above said discussion to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: :ORDER: The application filed by the plaintiff U/o 16 Rule 1 and 6 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC and application U/s 151 of CPC are hereby dismissed.” The order does not brood any perversity for this Court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It does not indicate any failure of justice again for the plaintiff to continue with the suit. 6. Since the suit is of the year 2010 and is languishing for the last 15 years and the suit being one for injunction, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality, by directing the concerned Court to dispose the suit within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37177 WP No. 22753 of 2025 Petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76