- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26238 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K.RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE KOLALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE R.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. SMT. BHANUPRIYA R., D/O LATE R. RAMAMURTHY W/O SRI.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 4. SMT.LATHA R., D/O LATE R.RAMAMURTHY, W/O SRI. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 5. SRI MAHESH R., S/O LATE R.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 6. SRI R.NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 7. SRI R.SRINIVAS S/O SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 181, NAYAKARA BEEDHI, KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU – 560 084. 8. SMT.R.LEELAVATHI D/O SRI K.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.77/31, 3RD CROSS, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 084. 9. SMT.R.MANJULA D/O SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, CHIKKAGULLAPPA LAY-OUT, HENNUR BANDE, KALYANANAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043. 10. SMT.PADMAVATHI D/O SRI K.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2K/294/3, VADDARAPALYA, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, VARAMAU AGARA VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 KALYANANAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043. 11. SRI K.R.VISHWANATH D/O SRI K.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 181, NAYAKARA BEEDHI, KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU – 560 084. 12. SRI.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE K.MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 13. SRI M.JAGADISH S/O LATE K.MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 14. SMT. M.ANITHA D/O LATE K.MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 15. SRI SHIVARAJ W/O LATE K.MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 16. SRI SHRIDHAR W/O LATE K.MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PRTITIONER NOS. 12 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 182 NAYAKARA BEEDHI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 KACHARAKANAHALLI ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU - 560 084. THE PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 10 AND 12 TO 16 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMELY SRI R.VISHWANATHA I.E., PETITIONER NO. 11. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MUNIRAJU K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE KOLALAPPA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI M.RAJANNA S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRI RAMACHANDRA D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SRI M.MUNIRAMA S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SRI M.ANAND S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 RESPONDENT NOS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.186 NAYAKARA BEEDHI KACHARAKANAHALLI ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU - 560 084. 6. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE KOLALAPPA W/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 7. SRI N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SMT. N.ARUNA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 8. SRI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 9. SRI RAHUL S/O SRI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 10. MISS. KUSHI D/O SRI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 11. SMT. N.MANJULA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 185/1 NAYAKARA BEEDHI KACHARAKANAHALLI ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU - 560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S.ASWATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/08/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 72ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU IN OS NO. 27287/2012 ON IA NO. 3 TO 6/2025 FOUND AT ANNX-E TO THE WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 14.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.27287/2012 rejecting four applications. The applications were seeking production of documents, recall of witnesses for further cross-examination and summoning of witnesses. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 2. Heard Sri.Muniraju K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.S.Aswatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy appearing for the respondents would take this court to the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the matter is of the year 2012, when the matter was at the stage of arguments, it is then four applications are preferred by the present petitioners. The concerned Court has rightly rejected the applications on the score that it has been preferred only as a ruse to drag the proceedings. The concerned Court has, on the following reasons rejected the applications so filed: “9. Point No.1:- On perusal of case papers, it is clear that earlier also the Plaintiffs have filed so many applications for reopening the case and for further cross examination of DW.1 and other applications. Even this court also considered some of the applications and ultimately rejected some of the applications filed by the Plaintiffs, noting that those applications have been filed only to prolong the matter etc. Recently the Plaintiffs have again filed IA No. 1 and 2/2025, when the case has been posted for main argument finally under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dtd. 23.09.2019 and permit the Plaintiffs to further cross- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 examine DW 1 by re-opening the case. However, this Court by considering the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.7401/2024 and also by considering the facts and circumstances of this case, has rejected both applications on 29.03.2025. hereafter, this Court heard the argument on behalf of both sides and when the case has been set down for reply argument as last chance only the present applications have been filed by the Plaintiffs. 10. Admittedly the Hon'ble High Court has given clear direction to this Court to dispose of this suit as expediently as possible. Therefore, in such circumstances, again reopening this case and again giving opportunity to the Plaintiffs to lead further the evidence of PW1 and to mark the documents and also summoning the BDA Commissioner to give evidence and to produce documents etc., are not at all necessary. If these applications are allowed, definitely more injustice and inconveniences will be caused to the Defendants herein. It is an admitted fact that even after specific directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said Writ Petition also the Plaintiffs have filed so many applications and all these applications have been disposed of by this Court and when the matter has been set down for reply arguments by this Court, again filed these applications only to prolong the matter and it appears that it is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, looking from any angle, this Court is on the opinion that the present applications have been filed by the Plaintiffs not for any bonafide reasons. On the other hand, only to prolong this case and give unnecessary troubles and harassment to the Defendants. 11. Even on perusal of contents of the affidavits also it is clear that there are no bonafide reasons have been stated by the Plaintiffs to allow these applications at this belated stage. If at all the Plaintiffs wanted to produce documents and to lead the evidence of Commissioner of BDA and to summon some documents from the BDA etc., they should have filed these applications before commencement of the evidence of the Defendants. However, when the case has been set down for reply arguments as last chance, after submission of the argument by the learned counsels for the Defendants, the present applications have been filed. So prima facie - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 filing of these applications are filed only to fill up the lacuna in the case of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, as stated above, if these applications are allowed, definitely more injustice will be caused to the Defendants. On the other hand, no injustice would cause to the Plaintiffs if these applications are not allowed as they have been not filed with any bonafide grounds. Hence from the above discussions and also facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of clear direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.7401/2024 dtd. 26.03.2024 this Court is on the opinion that the present applications shall have to be dismissed. Accordingly, Point No.1 answered in the Negative. 12. Point No.2: In view of the findings on the above point, the applications filed by the Plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R I.A.No.3/2025 to IA.No.6/2025 filed under Section 151 of CPC, Order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC, Order 7 Rule 14(3) R/w Section 151 of CPC & Order 16 Rule 1, 6 & 7 R/w Section 151 of CPC by the Plaintiffs are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-. Already lengthy argument on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants have been advanced and the matter has been already set down for replay argument. Therefore, The counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants can file their written submissions on the next date of hearing without fail. Call on 22.8.2025.” 4. A perusal at the order does not brood any perversity for this Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it nowhere leads to failure of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36666 WP No. 26238 of 2025 justice. The reasons rendered by the concerned Court appears to be plausible as the applications are preferred at the fag end of the trial. 5. In that light, without interfering with the proceedings or the impugned order, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 57