- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31947 WP No. 11753 of 2020 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. 11753 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. K S MANJUNATHA S/O LATE P SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT SHOBHA W/O SRI K S MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KENGERI FORT, BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. N. ROOPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE K C ANJEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SMT. MAHADEVAMMA DIED AND THEIR LRS ALREADY ON RECORD, AMENDED PETITION VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 2. SRI VISHWANATH S/O LATE K C ANJEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31947 WP No. 11753 of 2020 3. SMT ASHA D/O LATE K C ANJEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT E-NO.65/1/5461 ATTILAKKAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, KENGERI TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RAJU GUPTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2025, R2 AND R3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN REJECTING ALL THE 3 APPLICATIONS RESPECTIVELY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31947 WP No. 11753 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.688/2013 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.9 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) seeking to reopen the case, I.A.No.10 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to recall PW1, and I.A.No.11 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to produce the documents. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected the said applications. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have filed these applications contending that the defendants have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31947 WP No. 11753 of 2020 denied the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, it is necessary to produce the bank statement to indicate that the plaintiffs have issued a cheque in favour of the defendants for the said amount and that the said document is a crucial document to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 5. It is required to be noticed that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 15.12.2016. Thereafter, the defendants adduced evidence. The matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, these applications have been filed seeking to reopen the case, seeking permission to lead further evidence, and to produce additional documents. 6. The Trial Court, considering the enunciation of law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has come to conclusion that the plaintiffs have adopted dilatory tactics in delaying the proceedings and, accordingly, dismissed the applications. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31947 WP No. 11753 of 2020 7. I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court calling for interference in this case. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21