- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16824 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT C.V.RAJESHWARI SINCE DEAD, BY HER LRS C.V.MAHESH KUMAR, S/O. C.R.VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. C.V.SATHISH KUMAR S/O. C.R.VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO 10, 7TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SARWABOUMANAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA BANGALORE -560 061 3. C.V.LALITHA, D/O. C.R.VENKATARATHNAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO 50, ARYANAGAR, VYSHYA BANK COLONY, 34TH CROSS, JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE BANGALORE- 560 078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI KARTHIK PUROHITH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O SUBHASH R PUROHITH, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 2. SRI. SUBHASH R PUROHITH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS S/O R.A.PUROHIT BOTH ARE AT NO. 26, CHANDRAVIHAR, G.S STREET, BANGALORE-560 020 ALSO HAVING ADDRESSES AT NO 1129, 11TH CROSS, MAHLAKSHMI PURAM BANGALORE-560 086 NO. 295/P, FORMED BY THE WRITERS AND ARTISTS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LTD AT VHC PHASE OF VISHWA BHARATHI HOUSING COMPLEX LAYOUT, GIRINAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 085 3. SMT. RAJINI PUROHIT D/O. SUBBAIAH R PUROHIT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.1129, 11TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.V.VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 02/05/2026 ON IA NOS. 20 TO 22, IN O.S NO.197/2018 PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH 36) I.E ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID 1.ANOS 20 TO 22 BY PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE PLAINTIFF AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.20 to 22 in O.S.No.197/2018 dated 02.05.2026 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-36), the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.20 under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 12.03.2019. I.A.No.21 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling of PW.1 for further chief examination. I.A.No.22 is filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for production of the documents filed with the application. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the applications. 3. While dismissing the application, the Court had observed that the opportunity given by the Court to the plaintiff was not properly utilised. The order sheet reveals that the plaintiff and her LRs are indulging in dilatory tactics. The legal maxim law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, emphasises that the law assists those who are proactive - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 in protecting their rights, not those who are negligent or inactive and accordingly dismissed the applications. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking possession and that three sale deeds pertain to the neighbouring owners. These documents are crucial, from whom the Court can look at the boundaries. Earlier, they were under the impression that those documents were before the Court and later, when they came to know that they were not placed before the Court, the petitioner came up with the instant application. The trial Court, without considering the same, only on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given, had dismissed the IAs. He relied on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Munikrishnappa and others Vs. Sri.B.M Lokesh and others, arising out of W.P.No.44631/2019(GM-CPC) dated 21.06.2024. He relied on paragraph Nos.5 and 6, which read as follows: “5. The material available on record indicate that the villagers of Bommenahalli village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk, have filed O.S.No.407/2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners- defendants on the ground that the subject matter of the suit schedule is reserved for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 village grazing and the petitioners-defendants have no right over the suit schedule properties. The petitioners-defendants have filed detailed written statement, wherein they specifically stated that these suit schedule properties were granted in their favour by the revenue authorities and they are in possession of the properties. Admittedly, when the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioners-defendants have moved an application seeking permission to produce the documents and also sought permission to reopen the case from the stage of arguments and permission to adduce further evidence of DW-1. 6. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners-defendants, it indicate that some of the documents are obtained after closing of evidence of defendants i.e., on 20.01.2017 and some of the documents on which the petitioners-defendants intend to rely are the revenue documents and the orders of this Court. These documents are nothing but revenue records and the documents of judicial proceedings which go to the root of the matter with regard to the grant of land in favour of the petitioners-defendants. There is no doubt that the present applications are moved at the belated stage, and some of the documents were dated prior to the date of closing of the defendants' evidence, however, what is required to be seen is that the documents which the petitioners-defendants intend to produce are the documents which are necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Hence, in the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that the petitioners- defendants are to be given one opportunity to adduce the evidence by producing the documents referred in the aforesaid applications subject to the petitioners- defendants paying cost of Rs.4,200/- to be payable to the plaintiffs/respondents (Rs.100/- to each plaintiff). It is also made clear that the petitioners-defendants shall not seek any further adjournment and on the next date of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 hearing, the petitioners-defendants should adduce evidence without fail.” 5. It is submitted that in the said case, despite the delay, the court still permitted the parties and allowed the application. He has also relied on another judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandraswamy @ Chaluvanna Vs. Parvathamma, arising out of W.P.No.2282/2026(GM-CPC) dated 28.01.2026. He relied on paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, which read as follows: “3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for eviction/ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, both parties having adduced evidence and submitted arguments, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment, at which stage, the petitioner filed the instant applications seeking recalling of PW.1 for further cross-examination. The said applications having been opposed by the respondent/plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications on the ground that the petitioner was not diligent in proceeding with the matter. 4. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the reasoning of the trial Court that once the matter is reserved/posted for pronouncement of judgment, it is impermissible to recall witnesses and reopen evidence is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 5. Under these circumstances, having regard to the reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of the application which make out valid and sufficient cause to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned order and allow the applications filed by the petitioner and permit the petitioner to further cross- examine PW1 by issuing certain directions in this regard.” 6. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sugandhi (dead) by Legal representatives and another Vs. P. Rajkumar represented by his power agent Imam Oli1. He relied on paragraph Nos.8 to 11, which reads as follows: “8. Sub-rule (3) as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice 1 (2020)10 SCC 706 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3). 10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents. 11. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are set aside. The application (I.A. No.551 of 2018 in O.S. NO.257 of 2014) filed by the appellants-defendants before the Principal Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.” 7. Relying on these judgments, it is submitted that the Court went wrong in dismissing the applications without considering both the factual and legal aspects. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the defendant has filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 his objections and in those objections, it has been categorically mentioned how the plaintiff is dragging on the matter. The counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the objections filed before the Court, which state that the suit was filed in the year 2018 seeking the relief of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits. After completion of the evidence of both parties, the matter was posted for final arguments on 24.03.2021, on which date the plaintiff came up with an application for appointment of a commissioner. The said application was allowed on 08.07.2021, and the commissioner's report has also been tabled before the Court on 09.11.2022. The report was not in favour of the plaintiff, and under the circumstances, another application was filed for the appointment of the second commissioner on the same subject matter. The second commissioner's report has also been tabled before the Court on 15.04.2025, and that also is not in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter, the Court has proceeded to hear the matter. The plaintiff has addressed his arguments, and during the course of his arguments, no such issue has been raised, stating that the documents sought to be produced were with a mistaken impression that the said documents were - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 already on record. It is stated that if such documents were before the Court, the same would be reflected in the list of documents produced along with the suit. Such a contention by the plaintiff is unacceptable and an abuse of the process of the Court. It is stated that, without any basis, only to protract the proceedings, the present application is filed. The Court has rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute that the matter was posted for final arguments on 24.03.2021, and thereafter, two advocate commissioners, one after the other, were appointed, and both reports were placed before the court. This Court has perused the affidavit that was filed by the petitioner in support of the applications. The reasons given and the petitioner's reliance on the said document cannot be considered. The petitioner has already sought for appointment of advocate commissioner; the same was done, and a second advocate commissioner has also been appointed. The court has rightly observed that the manner in which the petitioner has filed those successive applications shows that the whole - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30817 WP No. 16824 of 2026 purpose is to delay and protract the proceedings. The petitioner has relied on several judgments, and the ratio laid down in those judgments have no application to he facts and circumstances of each case. At a belated stage, when an application is filed before the Court, the petitioner has to explain why this was not done at an earlier and appropriate point of time. The reasons stated in the affidavit and the arguments put forth before this court are not convincing, and the trial court was right in dismissing the application. This court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29