- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6113 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT GANGAVARA VILLAGE BUDHIGERE POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 129 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. S. VIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G.A SARVAMANGALA W/O B. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. NO.191/519 10TH C MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011 SRI. M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS R NO2-7 2. SMT PREMA D/O LATE M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 4. SRI SHIVAPRAKASH S/O LATE M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SMT KOMALA S/O LATE M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. SMT VATSALA D/O LATE M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7. SMT SAVITHA D/O M. S. SIDDALINGADEVRU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R NO. 2-7 R/AT BETTADA SONNEHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABEAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU-560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH N.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 21/02/26) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS B. WRIT IN THE NATURE OF THE CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JR DN) BENGALURU RURAL ON THE IA UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND U/S 151 OF CPC IN O.S. NO. 73/2004 MARKED AS ANNEXURE A OF THE PETITION. AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2025 in I.A under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Section 151 CPC in OS.No.73/2004 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore Rural, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit has filed a suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and consequently declare that the sale deed dated 01.04.2003 executed by the defendant No.1 that is M.S Siddalingadevru in favour of Muniraju S/o Krishnappa is not binding on the plaintiff. Further sought for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant has filed three IAs i.e. IA under Order XVIII Rule 1(3) Read with Section 151 CPC, IA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 under Order XVIII Rule 17 Read with Section 151 CPC and an IA under Section 151 CPC and the Court by way of a common order has rejected the I.As. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 is before this Court. By way of these applications, the defendant wants to recall and reopen the stage of defendants' evidence and permit him to lead further evidence and to produce documents. It is stated by the defendants that they have cancelled the GPA by issuing legal notice and has produced Xerox copy of the same but did not produce the original. The petitioner has purchased suit schedule property from defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 has deliberately not filed the said original office copy of the legal notice dated 23.03.2001 and it is served RPAD acknowledgment. It is stated that now the matter is posted for arguments. The said document is required to prove his case. It is stated that notice was issued to defendant No.1 to produce original office copy of the notice dated 23.03.2001. However on 06.03.2024 notice issued to defendant No.1 through RPAD returned as not claimed. Hence the service of notice to defendant No.1 was held sufficient. The Court by order impugned while dismissing the application has observed that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 defendant No.2 had filed the present applications at the fag- end of the trial when the matter was set down for arguments. Under such circumstances, the court opines that the circumstances do not reflect the bonafider on the part of defendant No.2 in seeking permission to produce the documents, no inconveniences or cogent reasons mentioned in support of the application to permit the defendant No.2 to produce the document and to recall and reopen the stage to mark the documents by the defendant No.2. It is also observed that the High Court of Karnataka in various case, has observed that the power to recall the witness for the purpose of marking the documents cannot be exercised by the Court repeatedly and at the convenience of the parties or to fill up the lacuna / omission in the evidence noticed at the time of arguments and power cannot be used by the Court routinely. Therefore if such applications are allowed, it will certainly protract the proceedings. The court further observed that the present case is of the year 2004 and already the court has granted sufficient time and also the case is more than 15 years old and the question of allowing the application at this stage does not arise and accordingly dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the specific intention of the petitioner is that the GPA executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of G.S Ashwathanarayana on 13.06.1994 has cancelled and revoked by defendant No.1 as per notice dated 23.03.2001 issued by respondent No.1. The said notice was duly served upon G.S Ashwathanarayana who is father of the respondent No.1 and to find out the said documents are necessary in the present case, defendant No.1 has deliberately not produced the original office copy of the legal notice dated 23.03.2001 and it is served RPAD acknowledgment as stated in the written statement. It is stated that the defendant has not actively participated in the court proceedings and did not lead his evidence. It is submitted that if the application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent and the court without considering all these aspects, has dismissed the same. 4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the present application is filed to recall and reopen the stage of defendant’s evidence and the court has rightly considered and dismissed the application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29194 WP No. 6113 of 2026 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner has come up with the application at the belated stage and why he could not approach the Court at an earlier point of time, there was no explanation forthcoming. Whenever the party files an application at their convenience if the court starts entertaining the application there is no end to the litigation. In that view of the matter, this court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4