- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18501/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUBHADRA W/O LATE P.S. ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5 60 FEET KALPANA CHAWALA ROAD BHOOPASANDRA, NEW EXTENSION RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADV.,) AND: GURUDATT DEVELOPERS A REGISTRERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.196 3RD PHASE, AKSHAY DATTA NEAR CHETANA COLLEGE VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI- 580 030 REPTD BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 1. SRI. REVENASIDDAPPA S/O ANNADANAPA RUDAGI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 2. SRI. GADIGAYYA HIREMATH S/O GURUPADAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 3. SRI. GIRISH S/O SHANKAR KARNAL AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 4. SRI. MITHUN S/O DIWAKAR JOSHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O GURUPADAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4 & 5 ARE REPTD. BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS THEIR GPA HOLDER. ALL ARE R/AT NO.196 3RD PHASE, AKSHAY DATTA NEAR CHETANA COLLEGE VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI- 580 030. 6. SRI. P.S. ANNAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. SUBHADRA W/O LATE P.S. ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 7. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O LATE P.S. ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 493, 10TH CROSS UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560080. 8. SMT. SHOBHA D/O LATE P.S. ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 9. SMT. VEENA D/O LATE P.S. ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.6, 8 & 9 ARE R/AT NO. 5, 60 FEET KALPANA CHAWALA ROAD BHOOPASANDRA, NEW EXTENSION RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560094. 10. SMT. MEERA SRIDHARA BABU W/O SRIDHARABABU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 11. SRI. SRIDHARABABU S/O P.S. RAJU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. BOTH AER R/AT NO. 100C I-N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.G. SATEESHA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 NOTICE TO R6 TO R11 IS H/S V/O/DTD:29.08.2023) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27/07/2023, PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-19) AT BANGALORE, ON IA NO. 16, IN O.S. NO. 4969/2017, DISMISSING THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FILED FOR PERMITTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO MARK THE COPY OF THE MOU DATED 20/06/2014 AND AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 23/07/2014, AS SECONDARY EVIDENCE IN THE SUIT ON O.S. NO. 4969/2017, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H & 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:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.4969/2017 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.4969/2017 for specific performance of the contract i.e. agreement of sale dated 23.07.2014. In the said suit, the petitioner who is arrayed as the defendant No.2 had filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. At paragraph 7 of the said written statement, it is specifically stated that the suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation and it is agreed between the plaintiffs and other defendants that the sale consideration amount is fixed at Rs.4,70,00,000/-. The parties i.e. the plaintiffs and the other defendants entered into two agreements of sale both dated 23.07.2014 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 one memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 20.06.2014. It is submitted that another agreement of sale is in the custody of the plaintiff and a copy is retained by the defendant No.2. Hence, an application was filed to mark it as a secondary evidence which was denied by the Trial Court under the impugned order. It is further submitted that the defendant No.2 was compelled to produce the Xerox copy of another agreement which is in the custody of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs, in the evidence, have admitted the MOU dated 20.06.2014 and on an application filed by one of the defendants, the Trial Court allowed the said application and directed the plaintiffs to produce the said MOU which they failed to do. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the defendant No.2 to mark the Xerox copy of another agreement of sale which is produced along with I.A.No.16. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting the defendant No.2 to mark another agreement of sale and the MOU which are in the custody of the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 3. Per contra, Sri.M.G.Sateesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the defendant No.2 intends to mark the Xerox copies of the agreement of sale and the MOU which has been categorically denied by the plaintiffs in the pleadings as well as in the evidence. They have stated that they do not have the originals and they cannot be allowed to mark the Xerox copies. The Trial Court has rightly considered the same and rejected the application which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S.No.4969/2017 seeking judgment and decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 23.07.2014. The said agreement is a registered agreement which is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition. In the said suit, the petitioner who is arrayed as defendant No.2 has filed a detailed written statement. Paragraph 7 of the written statement reads as under: “7. It is further submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff herein is not maintainable on various grounds, the first and foremost ground is that the above suit is hopelessly barred by time and as such the suit of the Plaintiffs is to be dismissed on the ground limitations. in the regd. sale agreement dtd.23.07.2014 it is clearly mentioned that the period for completion of the sale on or before 3 months from the date of the agreement and a grace period one month thereafter. As per the non-regd. sale agreement dtd. 23.07.2014 the period for sale to be completed is mentioned as 4 months and 1 month grace period. It is also mentioned in both the documents that the sale deed shall be executed by the vendors/defendants subject to the purchaser/plaintiff paying all the amounts agreed between the parties. It is also further submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is also not maintainable, as the Plaintiff herein has not properly valued the above suit, as the Agreement of Sale entered into - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 between the Plaintiff, this Defendant and other Defendants the Sale consideration amount fixed was at Rs. 4,70,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Seventy lakhs Only) but the Plaintiff herein has deliberately not produced the Agreement of Sale executed by the Defendants, wherein the Sale consideration amount mentioned was Rs. 4,70,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Seventy lakhs Only) and accordingly, the Court Fee paid by the Plaintiff is not sufficient, and as such the suit of the Plaintiff herein is to be dismissed on the ground, non-payment of proper Court Fee on the above suit. In view of the same this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to frame Preliminary issues and decide the same at the preliminary stage itself without going through the merit of the above case”. 6. The contention of the defendant No.2 is specific that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation. The sale consideration agreed between the plaintiffs and the other defendants is for Rs.4,70,00,000/- and there are two agreements both dated 23.07.2014 and one MOU dated 20.06.2014. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintiffs adduced the evidence and thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section 65(a) of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), seeking to mark the copy of the MOU dated 20.06.2014 entered into between Sri.P.S.Annaiah and others with Gurudatt Developers and a copy of the agreement of sale dated 23.07.2014 executed by Sri.P.S.Annaiah and others in favour of Gurudatt Developers. To substantiate the said application, an affidavit is filed by the defendant No.2, wherein the written statement averments are reiterated by contending that the parties have agreed to sell the properties for Rs.4,70,00,000/- and the parties have entered into MOU dated 20.06.2014 and two agreements of sale both dated 23.07.2014 and the originals of the agreement and MOU are in the custody and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have denied the said assertion. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected I.A.No.16 filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 65(a) of the Act and declined to mark the Xerox copies of the agreement of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 sale and the MOU alleged to be in possession of the plaintiffs. 7. It is required to be noticed that the Trial Court vide order dated 03.04.2021 on an application in I.A.No.4 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC has directed the plaintiffs to produce the original MOU dated 20.06.2014. It is required to be further noticed that despite the said order, the plaintiffs have failed to produce the said documents before the Trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the said document is not available. 8. Be that as it may, the order of the Trial Court dated 03.04.2021 has attained finality and for non- production of the MOU dated 20.06.2014, the consequences under the law has to follow before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has to take note of the said order and draw appropriate inference against the plaintiffs. Insofar as the contentions of the defendant No.2 that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33738 W.P. No.18501/2023 another sale agreement is entered into between the parties and the original of the same is in the custody of the plaintiffs, the same is required to be gone into by the Trial Court during the course of the trial. In my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Xerox copies of the agreement and the MOU cannot be marked. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The writ petition is disposed of by observing that if the defendant No.2 is able to establish that there were two agreements of sale and one MOU and the custody of the originals of these documents is with the plaintiffs and if the plaintiffs fail to produce the same before the Trial Court, the Trial Court would draw adverse inference against the plaintiffs while deciding the suit. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49