- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16267 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M.K. RANGANATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.837/F. 17TH F MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. B. SUDHA BAI, W/O LATE M.K. RANGANATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SRI. SATHOSH M.R. RAO, S/O LATE M.K. RANGANATHA RAO, AGED BOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NO. 837/F, 17TH 'F' MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 011. 3. SMT. ANASUYA M.R. RAO, D/O LATE M.K. RANGANATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.556, 43RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J RAVISUNDER, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. G. SRINIVAS, S/O GURUMURTHAPPA, HINDU, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 27, SEEGEHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 047. ALSO AT SITE NO. 17 IN OLD SY. NO. 62/1, DEVASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBVLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 2. SRI. N. BALACHANDRAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PLAINTIFF, HINDU, MAJOR, R/AT C/O THIMMAPPA BUILDING, THIMAPPA BADAVANE, VENKATESWARA THEATRE ROAD, DEVASARIDRA, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. ALSO AT SITE NO. 17 IN OLD SY.NO.62/1, DEVASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU. 3. SRI. G. VENKATESH, S/O LATE GURUMURTHAPPA, NO. 127/A, TANK ROAD, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, I CROSS, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 ALSO AT SITE NO.17 IN OLD SY.NO.62/1, DEVASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.22, LAKSHMAIAH BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, GEETHA CLINIC OPP. ROAD DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRS 4. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O CHINNAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SRI. K.R. KARUNAKAR S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.43, 2ND CROSS, MADANAPALLI, RAMASAMUDRAM ROAD, MATLAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SMT. DEVIYAMMA SRIDEVI W/O SRI.MURTHY. D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AND LATE PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.22, GEETHANJALI NILAYA, NAGAWARA PALYA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 098. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI.BALAKRISHNAPPA, D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AND LATE PARVATHAMMA R/ AT NO.1, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, SIDDAPURA, RAMAGONDANAHALLI PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU - 560 037. AND ALSO AT CHENNAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR KAMMASANDRA (KOTILINGA) K.G.F.TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 10/03/2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.44 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC TO RECALL PW-1 TO ADDUCE FURTHER EXAMINATION IN CHIEF AND I.A.NO.45 TO REOPEN THE CASE OF PLAINTIFFS AND I.A. NO.46 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE COURT OF XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-36), BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE THREE APPLICATIONS i.e., I.A. NOS.44 AND 46 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-E, F AND G FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the common orders dated 10/03/2025 passed on I.A.No.44 filed under section 151 of CPC to recall PW-1 to adduce further examination in Chief and I.A.No.45 to reopen the case of Plaintiff's and I.A.No.46 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC for production of documents by the court of XXXV Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-36), Bengaluru vide Annexure - A and consequently allow the three application i.e., I.A.Nos.44 and 46 vide at Annexure - E, F & G field by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the interest of justice and equity. b) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri J. Ravisunder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A.M. Vijay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, institutes a suit for declaration and possession. The issue in the lis does not relate to the merit of the matter. In the proceeding, three applications - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 are filed by the plaintiff; one to recall PW1 and permit him to lead additional evidence; the other, to reopen the case of the plaintiffs and permit the plaintiffs to lead further evidence and the third, for production of documents, list of which was enclosed to the application in I.A.No.46. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would elaborate the submissions with regard to the application so filed. The learned counsel would submit I.A.No.44 was necessary to be allowed to lead additional evidence. 5. In the event, I.A.No.46 for production of documents would be allowed and I.A.No.45 would also become imperative for the plaintiffs to lean further evidence based upon the said documents. The concerned Court by the impugned order rejects all the applications filed by the petitioners on the score that the Court Commissioner, who was appointed has already filed his report along with all the documents that are now sought to be produced by the petitioners by I.A.No.46. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows. "REASONS Point No.1: The plaintiff examined as PW1, his first affidavit evidence was filed on 06.04.2013. The 2nd - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 affidavit was filed on 05.12.2013 and 3rd evidence affidavit was filed on 09.10.2017, 4th additional chief examination filed on 20.06.2019. On last three occasions, the PW1 was cross examined. Cross examination completed on 11.11.2019. After conclusion of evidence of both parties, now the case is posted for arguments. The suit was filed in the year-2010, almost 15 years have been lapsed. In these 15 years, what are the efforts made by the plaintiffs to secure these documents is not stated. He simply stated that these documents are recently traced by the Commissioner appointed in this case. But the certified copies of the documents intended to be filed along with Ι.Α.Νο.46 obtained on 12.08.2024, 06.08.2024, 30.07.2024, 27.11.2024 etc., Immediately after obtaining the documents, these applications are not filed. The plaintiff adopting dilatory tactics. There is no proper and acceptable reasons to allow the I.A.Nos.44 to 46. Advocate for plaintiff has filed decisions in (2011) 11 Supreme Court cases 275, 1997(3) Kant LJ 474, AIR 2012 Sikkim.1, ILR 2000 KAR 820. These decisions are factually different. Since the trial has been prolonged for 15 years and the documents are not necessary for adjudicating the matter. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative. Point No.2: In view of my findings to the above point, I pass the following; ORDER I.A.Nos.44 to 46 are dismissed, since the objection is filed to Commissioner report. Office to summon Santhosh Kumar Ijeri, the A.R.O., K.R.Puram: to give evidence regarding the Commissioner work he executed as per the order of this court. The costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 Call on 27-03-2025, for evidence of the Commissioner." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would defend the order contenting that the Court Commissioner was appointed and the Court Commissioner has submitted his report under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short), all the documents that form the part of the Commissioner’s report will have to be looked into by the concerned Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would now submit that if such an observation is made that the Court shall take note of all the documents that are a part of the report to the Court Commissioner, it would suffice. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the concerned Court to look into all the documents that are appended to the Court Commissioner’s report, as they are the ones that are now wanting to be placed on record by the plaintiffs. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27889 WP No. 16267 of 2025 9. In the light of the suit being of the year 2010, I deem it appropriate to infuse certain finality into the proceedings by directing the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings, within an outer limit of three months, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT: BHK