- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7875 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VENKATESHAIAH S/O LATE MAHALCHODAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT DASABEDI SARJAPUR HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DIST - 560 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O SRI N T SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. S. ROOPA D/O SRI N.T. SHIVANN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 3. S. RAMAYA W/O SRI N T SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.106 ASSESSMENT NO.27 NO.72, B BLOCK, IST CROSS MALAGALA VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 091 BANGALORE. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 4. SRI RAVISHANKAR N.S S/O SHIVANNA N.T AND SMT SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O 106, IST CROSS L RAMAKRISHNA BADAVANE MALAGALU, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.D. RANANDA, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-19) IN O.S.NO.7674/2016 DATED 24.09.2020 AT ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 24.09.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.3 to 5 in O.S.No.7674/2016 by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner / plaintiff herein had filed O.S.No.7674/2016 before the jurisdiction civil Court at Bengaluru seeking relief of specific performance of sale - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 agreement dated 25.01.2014 and alternatively he also had sought for the relief of refunding the entire advance amount of Rs.29,50,000/- paid under the agreement for sale dated 25.01.2014 with interest. In the said suit, I.A.Nos.3 to 5 were filed on behalf of the petitioner to reopen the case, permit the petitioner to produce additional documents and also permit him to lead further evidence. These three applications were opposed by the defendants by filing separate objections to all the three applications. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dismissed I.A.Nos.3 to 5 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A.Nos.3 to 5 were filed immediately after the plaintiff's evidence was closed. Production of additional document and leading of further evidence is necessary to prove the financial capacity of the petitioner for advancing the sale consideration under the agreement for sale dated25.01.2014. If the petitioner is not granted an opportunity, his case is likely to be prejudiced. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for the respondents who has filed statement of objection to this writ petition submits that during the course of deposition of plaintiff (PW.1), the Trial Court has specifically asked him a question whether he had any document to establish that he possessed Rs.28 lakhs as on the date of execution of sale agreement (Ex.P1) and the petitioner has stated that he had no documents. Subsequently, only to fill up the lacuna, the present applications are filed. He submits that subsequent to dismissal of I.A.Nos.3 to 5 similar applications were once again filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court which were rejected with cost. Order passed on subsequent applications have not been questioned by the petitioner. Therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The suit in O.S.No.7674/2016 has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff with a prayer to direct the defendants to execute and register the sale deed regarding suit schedule property, as per the terms of agreement of sale deed 25.01.2014 after receiving balance sale consideration and in the event the specific performance of the aforesaid agreement is not possible he also has made the alternative prayer for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 refund of entire advance amount of Rs.29,50,000/- paid by him under the agreement for sale (Ex.P1). 7. It appears that during the course of deposition of the petitioner (PW1), the Trial Court had asked a question to the petitioner whether he had any document to show that as on the date of execution of Ex.P1 he had sum of Rs.28 lakhs with him and the petitioner had stated before the Court that he had no such document with him. Agreement for sale per the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of applications I.A.Nos.3 to 5, the petitioner had subsequently found in the almirah in his house certain documents relating to agricultural loan which was disbursed to him by Syndicate Bank on 13.01.2014. It is under these circumstances, I.A.Nos.3 to 5 were filed by him immediately after evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed and before the defendants' evidence had commenced. The Trial Court has rejected the said applications only for the reason that the Court had questioned him about any document to prove that he had a sum of Rs.28 lakhs as on the date of execution of sale agreement and he had answered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 in the negative. This approach of the Trial Court in my considered opinion is totally illegal and arbitrary. 8. The petitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of applications that documents regarding disbursement of loan from a nationalized bank was subsequently found in the almirah in his house and this document according to him is a necessary document to prove that the petitioner had financial resources as on the date of execution of agreement of sale. In the event the petitioner is not allowed to produce necessary document in this regard his case is likely to be prejudiced and on the other hand, no hardship and injury would be caused to the defendants, who are yet to lead evidence on their behalf. Rejecting of similar applications filed by the petitioner / plaintiff subsequent to the order impugned is of no consequence since this Court is considering the validity of the earlier order which is impugned in this writ petition. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned needs to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the following:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40825 WP No. 7875 of 2021 ORDER a. Writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 24.09.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.3 to 5 by the Court of VII Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside and consequently the prayer made in the said applications is allowed. c. It is needless to state that the Trial Court shall make all efforts to dispose of the main case as directed by this Court in MFA No.4075/2017 Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24