- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21794 WP No. 8843 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8843 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S GOWRAMMA W/O RAMANJINI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.341, 4TH MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, DODDABANASAWADI POST BANGALORE-560 043. REP. BY SPA HOLDER SRI. RAMANJINI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIDHAR B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT. PILLAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21794 WP No. 8843 of 2026 ALL ARE R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN.560 067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.719/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AND ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER ON I.A.NO.11, 12 AND 13 DATED 14/01/2026 AT ANNEXURE-H ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NOS. 11, 12 AND 13, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short the ‘Trial Court’) on I.A. Nos.11, 12 and 13 in OS No.719/2016, whereby the said applications filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to recall and reopen the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21794 WP No. 8843 of 2026 evidence stage and to produce certain additional documents came to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. On service of suit summons, the defendants have appeared through their counsel and have filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Thereafter, the plaintiff as well as the defendants have adduced their evidence. When the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No.11 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the order dated 05.08.2024; I.A. No.12 under Section 151 of CPC seeking re-opening of the case from the stage of arguments to evidence; and I.A. No.13 under Order 7 Rule 14 seeking permission to produce additional documents, respectively. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21794 WP No. 8843 of 2026 4. The evidence of plaintiff has been closed on 05.08.2024. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. After lapse of nearly one year, the application was filed for recalling the order dated 05.08.2024. Even in that application, the plaintiff has not specifically stated therein to recall the witnesses and as to what additional documents they have sought to be produced. Since the said applications have been filed in a casual manner and at a belated stage, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the applications. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23