- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34585 WP No. 23637 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23637 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 27, CM LAYOUT, NEAR TO ITI LAYOUT, YELLUKUNTE EXTENSION, BBMP WARD NO. 190, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O M.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 11/2, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, NEAR SANGAM BAKERY, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. 2. SRI. SANDEEP, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34585 WP No. 23637 of 2025 RESIDING AT KHANESHUMARI NO.11/2, 1ST FLOOR, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, NEAR SANGAM BAKERY, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. 3. SRI. ASHOK, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. MAHESHWARI, HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT KHANESHUMARI NO. 11/2, GROUND FLOOR, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, NEAR SANGAM BAKERY, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. 5. SRI S.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. SMT. JAYANTHI, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 11/2, FIRST FLOOR, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34585 WP No. 23637 of 2025 NEAR SANGAM BAKERY, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. 7. SRI. RAJESH, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 11/2, GROUND FLOOR, YELLUKUNTE VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, BESIDE TO NANDHINI MILK SHOP, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING /SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 17.07.2025, PASSED ON I.A. NOS.21 AND 22 IN O.S. NO.7132/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A), BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34585 WP No. 23637 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the impugned common order dated 17.07.2025, passed on I.A. Nos.21 and 22 in O.S.No.7132/2016 on the file of the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Annexure-A), by allowing this writ petition, in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Sri.Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.S.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. A suit comes to be instituted by the petitioner- plaintiff in O.S.No.7132/2016 for possession inter alia. The issue is not with regard to merit of the matter. At the time of the reply arguments, the plaintiff files two applications seeking marking of two documents. By the time, the petition could be preferred or the order could be passed at the hands of this Court, the learned counsel for the parties would submit that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34585 WP No. 23637 of 2025 documents had already been marked. The documents that are marked are a judgment of this Court in R.F.A.No.725/1989 and another legal proceedings of the year 1984. It is trite law that mere marking of a document would not amount to its proof. It is for the plaintiff to prove those documents, in accordance with law. 4. In the light of the event marking of documents already happened and the suit progressing there is no warrant of interference. The suit, is languishing before the concerned Court, for the last nine years, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality without interfering with the impugned order, but with a direction to the concerned Court to dispose the suit within an outer limit of six months, in accordance with law, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE