- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12078 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S.SHILPA W/O HARISH KUMAR, D/O LATE R. SHIVASHANKAR, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, 17TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 096 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.3, 8TH CROSS, SHAKTHI GANAPATHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DIVYATEJ H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMI W/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, 17TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 096 2. SRI. S MURALIKRISHNA S/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, 17TH CROSS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 096 3. SMT. R MONIKA, D/O M.P.RAMESH AND LATE NANDAKUMARI, W/O M. YESHWANTH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.209, SREE ARCADE APARTMENT, 2ND PHASE, 12TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.R.SADASHIVAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.J.M.RAJANNASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO.50 IN O.S. NO.5335/2014 C/W O.S. NO. 7256/2016 AND O.S. NO.5737/2019 DATED 24.02.2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-27) VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE I.A. NO.50 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 CAV ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.50 in O.S.No.5335/2014 C/w O.S.No.7256/2016 and O.S.No.5737/2019 dated 24.02.2026 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. The respondent No.1 herein had filed O.S.No.5335/2014 seeking partition and the petitioner has filed O.S.No.5737/2019 seeking partition and separate possession. The respondent No.2 who is the defendant No.1 had filed I.A.No.50 under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of CPC seeking production of documents including alleged Will dated 27.07.2009. The trial Court had allowed I.A.No.50 by order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.2 had full knowledge of the alleged Will from the inception and despite such knowledge, he has deliberately not produced the same either along with the written statement or at any earlier stage of the proceedings. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 is submitted that the trial Court had failed to consider that respondent No.2 has consistently failed to produce the Will in three separate proceedings. It is submitted that the application filed by the respondent No.2 is highly belated, filed at the stage when the evidence of all other parties has been completed and the matter was posted for the evidence of respondent No.2. This will amount to allowing respondent No.2 to fill up lacunae in the case, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that he has taken the plea of Will by way of amendment and even thereafter he did not produce the document which clearly establishes that the present application is an afterthought and the trial Court, without considering all these, had allowed the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of Khem Singh Vs. Dila Ram arising out of CMPMO.No.56/2026 dated 24.03.2026. She had relied on paragraph No.15 which reads thus: “15. A perusal of the application does not disclose what prevented the petitioner/defendant from producing the said documents at an earlier stage, particularly at the time of filing the written statement. The documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 sought to be produced are certified copies of Jamabandi and mutations, which are public documents, and it cannot be presumed that of these were not within the knowledge of the petitioner.” 5. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Koruprolu Nagaraju (died) and Others Vs. Lanka Rambabu1. He had relied on paragraph No.18 which reads thus: “18. On perusing the entire material available on record and in the light of the judgments cited above, this Court observed that, the present case is also similarly situated petitioners. The suit is filed in the year 2008, thereafter, on several occasions, the matter was adjourned. The simple reason mentioned in the petition that the documents are not available at the time of petitioner’s evidence and he could trace them is not sufficient to grant leave to the petitioner to file the said documents after lapse of long time, without necessary details like when and how they were traced and where they were traced. Further, there is no explanation is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/D1 to D6 how the proposed documents are relevant to determine the issues on hand.” 6. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ficus Pax Private Limited arising out of WP.No.23634/2025 dated 03.09.2025 in paragraph No.9 which reads thus: 1 2023 SCC OnLine AP 2638 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 “9. On a blend of judgments rendered by the Apex Court and that of the High Courts of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana what would unmistakably emerge is that, the defendant is required to produce all the documents in its custody and possession at the time of filing of the written statement particularly, in a commercial suit or depict reasonable cause for not doing so. Mere negligence or inadvertence has been consistently repudiated by the High Courts of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, as insufficient for justification of reasonable cause. It, therefore, becomes necessary to notice as to what is the document that the defendant wanted to produce through the application. The affidavit in support of the application reads as follows: “I, S.Krishna, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri A.K.Suresh, resident of Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows; 1) I am working as Senior Executive Non-Motor Claims, in the Defendant's Customer Service Center, at Bengaluru and am well acquainted with the facts of the above suit. 2) I submit that, we had filed the Written Statement in the above suit to the plaint and later on submitted our statement of truth and affidavit of admission/denial on behalf of the defendant. However, we could not produce the documents in support of our defence earlier as the same were in our Corporate Office at Gurugram. Therefore, we could not produce the documents in support of our defence in the above suit at the earliest time. 3) I further submit that, the documents relied on by our company in support of our defence is very much necessary to dispose of the above suit on merits. Therefore, the present application is filed seeking permission of the Hon'ble Court to produce the documents by the defendant in support of our defence. 4) I submit that if the prayer made in the accompanying application is allowed, no harm will be caused to the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the accompanying application is not allowed. our Company will be put to considerable hardship and loss. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 WHEREOF I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant the prayer made in the accompanying application in the interest of justice.” Searching for a reasonable cause in the aforesaid affidavit is akin to searching a needle in a haystack. The affidavit in support of the application is woefully bereft of particulars. It neither chronicles the nature of documents with clarity nor articulates any cogent reason for their delayed surfacing. The pleading in the affidavit is perfunctory, cryptic and wanting in material. Not even the date of the document that the defendant wanted to produce is mentioned in the affidavit. The documents dated back to 2017-18, they are internal records of the Company itself. It cannot be said to have eluded its possession or control at the time of filing of the written statement in 2025. What stares starkly in the face is negligence and negligence, as law proclaims, can never come under the umbrella of reasonable cause. The order of the concerned Court, thus does not brood any illegality or error apparent for this Court to interfere.” 7. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store2 in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which reads thus: “14. The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and 2 (2013) 14 SCC 1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. Though power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of the court and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very well available throughout the trial, we are of the view that even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff cannot be permitted. 15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.” 8. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. and Another Vs. P.Rajkumar Rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli arising out of Civil Appeal No.3427/2020 dated 13.10.2020 in paragraph No.10 which reads thus: “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.” 9. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in case of Naresh Arneja Vs. Sh. Atul Gupta arising out of CM(M) 965/2022 & CM APPL.40534/2022, CM APPL. 40535/2022 dated 14.09.2022 in paragraph No.16 which reads thus: “16. That, however, is not to say that, in the absence of any reason whatsoever, such an application can be allowed. The application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC, filed by the petitioner in the present case, is delightfully non-speaking. It says nothing except that the petitioner desired to place the additional documents on record and that such placement would not prejudice the respondent. It does not give any explanation as to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 why the documents had not been filed by the petitioner earlier. It does not even purport to state that the documents were necessary for a complete adjudication of the case.” 10. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and the same needs to be set aside. 11. Learned Senior counsel representing the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.2 submits that the trial Court had rightly considered and allowed the application. It is submitted that the rules and procedures are hand-maid of justice. Therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court shall impose costs rather than decline the production of documents itself. In this regard, learned Senior counsel had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma3. It is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is well considered order and no interference is called for. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel representing the learned counsel for respondent No.2, perused the entire material on record. In 3 LAWS(SC)-2022-5-133 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendant No.1 had referred to the Will dated 27.07.2009. The original Will was not produced earlier because of confronting the said document in the cross-examination of the plaintiffs and also the defendants claiming the share. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5335/2014 and O.S.No.5737/2019 have not admitted the said document in the cross-examination, and at last, when it is confronted on 06.02.2026 to the DW-1, he also did not admit the document. The production of original Will in the evidence is very much necessary, and the documents sought to be produced are relevant to prove the case. It is stated that some of the documents were misplaced earlier and now, they found the documents which are related to the case. Hence, there is delay in production of the document and it may be condoned. 13. While allowing the application, the trial Court had observed that after the completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in all the suits, the stage is posted for defendant No.1 evidence. In order to prove the defense of the defendant No.1, he has come up with the present application seeking permission to produce the Will. It is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 observed that the Will is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, and the application is at a belated stage. But the Will is a prime and important document to prove the defense of the defendant No.1. Moreover, the suit is one for partition, and all the parties are the joint family members as contended in the plaint averments. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to respective shares will have to be decided and adjudicated on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The defense of defendant No.1 is that on the strength of the Will, he is claiming his right over the suit schedule properties. According to defendant No.1, as per the Will, some of the family properties are bequeathed to defendant No.1 and some of the properties are bequeathed to the plaintiffs. The trial Court observed that the production of the documents is very much necessary. If those documents are received on record subject to proof and relevancy, it will definitely meet the ends of justice, and the parties are at liberty to raise their objections while marking of the documents. They are also at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses with respect to the documents. 14. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The defendant No.1 wants to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 mark the certified copies of the RTC, Sale Deed, original bank statement, Will, original loan transfer ledger, statement of loan account, certified copy of the order in WP, MFA, certified copy of the FIR, certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.26880/2019, original application letter, legal notice, periodical inspection of transformer, original copy of the transformer shifting by BESCOM, certified copy of the petition, order sheets, memo, affidavit in Crl.Misc.No.170/2015, certified copy of the order sheet, Memo and appeal memorandum in Criminal Apl.No.101/19, tax paid receipts and the certified copy of criminal petition No.1259/2020. According to the defendant No.1, all these documents are very much relevant to prove his case. The application is without a doubt filed at a belated stage. The petitioner has relied on several judgments passed by the Apex Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that procedure is the handmaid of justice and the procedure and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court in doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adverse party, the Court must lean towards doing substantial - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. The 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 underlined truth in every dispute. 15. In the light of the observations of the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case, this is a suit for partition, and there are two suits. With regard to the Will, defendant No.1 has already made a factual foundation in the pleading. But the application is filed at a belated stage. Now on this ground, if this application is dismissed and the suit is disposed of, and in the event the appellate Court feels that the matter has to be remanded, on this count, it would unnecessarily protract the litigation, and it is not in the interest of either of the parties. By allowing this application, no prejudice will be caused and the Court within a fixed timeline can complete the suit. In fact, the trial Court had also observed that the parties to the suit are at liberty to raise their objections while marking of the documents and also are at liberty to cross-examine the witness with respect to the documents. The primary duty of the Court is to ascertain the truth and render substantial justice between the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 parties. The procedure should not be applied in a manner that excludes material evidence which has a bearing upon the issue in controversy. When a document has a direct nexus with the matter in dispute and its consideration would assist the court in arriving at a just conclusion, the Court may permit production and marking of such document subject to affording an opportunity to the other side and it is necessary to impose costs. A hyper-technical approach resulting in the exclusion of relevant evidence would defeat the very object of the judicial process. The test is not about the state at which the document is produced, but whether its reception is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved and whether any prejudice is caused to the opposite party and it can be adequately compensated. 16. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner and the trial Court had rightly allowed the application and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. However, considering the fact that this application is filed with delay, this Court deems it - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30339 WP No. 12078 of 2026 appropriate to impose costs on respondent No.2/defendant No.1. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order . ii. Considering the fact that the application is filed with a delay, the respondent No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. iii. The trial Court shall conclude the evidence in a fixed time frame. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1