- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29203 WP No. 13516 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13516 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.RAJEGOWDA S/O. LATE. MOGANNEGOWDA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2. SRI. KALEGOWDA S/O. LATE MOGANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SANNATHAMMEGOWDA S/O. LATE MOGANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 4. SRI. JAYARAMEGOWDA S/O. LATE MOGANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING OF CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARNAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ROHITH.B.J., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29203 WP No. 13516 of 2021 AND: 1. SRI. H.K.PUTTARAJU S/O. LATE PATEL KENGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HARNAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2. SRI. H.K.JAGADISH S/O. LATE PATEL KENGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HARNAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 3. SRI. BASAVALINGEGOWDA, S/O. LATE KYATHE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NAVILUKODI VILLAGE, ATHIGODU POST, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 4. SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O. LATE KYATHE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NAVILUKODI VILLAGE, ATHIGODU POST, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & 2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:27.08.2021; R3 & 4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29203 WP No. 13516 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Rohith.B.J., counsel for the petitioners has appeared through video conferencing. 2. An emergent notice to respondents 3 and 4 was ordered on 27.08.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 3 and 4 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The common orders dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna on I.A.Nos.9, 10 and 11 in O.S.No.25/2013 vide Annexure-A is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29203 WP No. 13516 of 2021 6. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. After the service of the suit summons, the defendant No.3 filed written statement. The Trial Court framed Issues on 26.09.2014. As the things stood thus, in 2021, the plaintiffs filed three applications as under: (1) I.A.No.9 - under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to file list with documents. (2) I.A.No.10 - under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case for filing of documents and give evidence. (3) I.A.No.11 - under Order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC to recall PW1 for production of documents and give evidence. The defendants filed statement of objections to the applications. The applications are furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same are marked as Annexures-E, E1 and E2. As could be seen from the applications, they are filed on 30.03.2021. Mr.Kalegowda - the second plaintiff has sworn to a declaration of facts. He has stated that recently he has obtained certain documents and hence, he could not produce - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29203 WP No. 13516 of 2021 the same at the time of filing of the suit. Except requesting the Court to file the documents, the details are not furnished by him. There is nothing on record to show that he was prevented from furnishing the documents at the time of filing of the suit. Moreover, the plaintiffs knocked the doors of the Court in 2013. The Trial Court framed issues on 26.09.2014. After a lapse of eight years, the plaintiffs attempted to furnish certain documents by filing applications without specifications. The Trial Court is justified in not permitting the plaintiffs to fill up the lacuna. In my view, the rejection of the applications is just and proper. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34