- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1250/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 47 YEARS. SARDAR SINCE, DEAD BY HIS LR’S. 2. SMT. BHANU W/O LATE SARDAR AGED 43 YEARS. 3. IMRAN PASHA .S S/O LATE SARDAR AGED 30 YEARS. 4. SMT. AYESHA .S D/O LATE SARDAR AGED 29 YEARS. 5. SMT. NAZIYA .S D/O LATE SARDAR AGED 27 YEARS. 6. AFRIDI .S D/O LATE SARDAR AGED 25 YEARS. 7. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 ALL ARE R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE ROAD, KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TQ BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH, ADV., FOR SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.,) AND: 1. MUNISHAMAPPA S/O LATE KADIRAPPA @ YERRAPPA AGED 77 YEARS. 2. NARAYANAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 43 YEARS. 3. 3(a) 3(b) 3(c) SHANTHAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 45 YEARS. SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. SRI. SUBBANNA S/O LATE SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. SRI. LOHITH S S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. SMT. SNEHA S D/O SRI. SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) TO (c) ARE R/AT. UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE KUMBALAHALLI POST HOSAKOTE TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562114. 4. KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 39 YEARS. 5. PRAKASH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 41 YEARS. 6. MANJUNATH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 39 YEARS. 7. VASUDEV S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 37 YEARS. 8. UMESH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 35 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT HANUMAKKANA MUTT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE ROAD, KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TQ BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRIYANKA G.M. ADV., FOR SRI. K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 08.11.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.XI AND XII IN R.A.285/2011 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNX- A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2021 passed on IA.Nos.11 and 12 in RA.No.285/2011 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Santhosh, learned counsel for Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Priyanka G.M., learned counsel for Sri.K.Abhinav Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in OS.No.1842/2005. The respondents filed the suit against the petitioners for possession contending that the mother of plaintiff No.1 had been granted land measuring 6 guntas in Sy.No.94 of Upparahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 further contented that defendant Nos.1 to 3 illegally put up the construction in the granted land. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 27.06.2011. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in RA.No.285/2011, which came to be allowed by the Appellate Court, resulting in the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants/petitioners herein preferred regular second appeal in RSA.No.2183/2018. This Court, vide judgment dated 03.09.2019 allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2018 in RA.No.285/2011 and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal by permitting the parties to adduce further evidence. 4. It is to be noticed that, after remand, the plaintiffs produced Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 to substantiate the contention that the land had been granted in favour of plaintiff No.1 and these documents are the endorsement and hakku patra. The defendants, on the other hand, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 produced Exs.D1, D2 and D3. These are the extracts of the allotment register, which indicates that the sites had been allotted in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendants filed applications in IA.Nos.11 and 12 seeking leave of the Appellate Court to lead further evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence adduced by the appellants/plaintiffs and also sought to issue summons to the witness referred in the application to give evidence on the produced exhibits and further sought direction to produce the original Register Book bearing No.1996/96-97 pertaining to the grant of house sites in Upparahalli Village. The Appellate Court under the impugned order rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the applications ought to have been filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). 5. It is further to be noticed that this Court while allowing the RSA.No.2183/2018 permitted the parties to lead further evidence. Considering the said observation and also taking note of the fact that Exs. P12 and P13, as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 well as Exs. D1 to D3, have been issued by the very same authority and the contents of these documents run contrary to each other, it would be appropriate to issue necessary summons to the author of the said documents to clarify the same before the Court and produce the documents relied on by the parties. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavits accompanying both the applications in IA.Nos.11 and 12, I am of the view that the applications filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. 6. It is needless to observe that, if the concerned officer of the local body produced the original Register Book and depose before the Court, it is always open for the appellants/plaintiffs to cross-examine the said witness, on such evidence. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08.11.2021 passed on IA.Nos.11 and 12 in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31740 W.P. No.1250/2022 RA.No.285/2011 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.11 and 12 filed by the respondents in RA.No.285/2011 are allowed. iii. The trial Court shall issue necessary summons to the witness and for production of documents. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33