- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5761 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.M. RAJASHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY RESIDING AT NO.401, SRI MARUTHI ENCLAVE, RAVIPRAKASHNAGAR, KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017. 2. SRI. K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.401, SRI MARUTHI ENCLAVE, RAVIPRAKASHNAGAR, KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017. 3. SRI. MARUTHI DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.2, B-2, VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX, KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL, BANGALORE - 560 017 REP. BY ITS PARTNERS THE PETITIONERS NOS.1 AND 2 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P3; PETITONER NO.2 IS SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2026) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 AND: 1. SRI. PERIMBILAVIL RAKESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PLANTIFFS 2. SRI. PREMAMBUJA W/O PERIMBILAVIL RAKESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE AT PLAT NO.E 206, 2ND FLOOR, RAHEJA RESIDENCY APARTMENTS, KORAMANGALA, BDA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 038. 3. SRI. K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(A). SMT. LAKSHMI M. REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O LATE K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY NO.150, KONENAKUNTE, GANGUPATHI LAKKANNA GARDEN, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 062. 3(B). SMT. PADMANJALI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O LATE K.M. MUNISWAMY REDDY, PADMANJALI NILAYA, RAVIPRAKASH NAGAR, KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL POST BANGALORE - 560 017. 3(C). RAVI PRAKASH REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE K.M. MUNISWAMI REDDY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 WESTERN PORTION, 1ST FLOOR, NO.14, 10TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 75. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2026, R1 AND R2 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025, NOTICE TO R3(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025, NOTICE TO R3(A) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R3(B) - SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 10.02.2020 PASSED IN IA NO.12, IA NO.13 AND IA NO.14 IN O.S.NO.27437/2009 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU, (CCH-22) i.e., ANNX-A, BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATIONS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.12 to 14 in O.S.No.27437/2009 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Heard Sri P. B. Raju., learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.27437/2009 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, declaration and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants have filed written statement. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Thereafter, the matter was posted for defendants evidence and DW1 was examined. However, the plaintiffs’ counsel could not cross- examine DW1. 4. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.12 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 ‘CPC’), I.A.No.13 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.14 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the stage of PW1's evidence, permission to produce additional documents, and permission to cross-examine DW1. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 10.02.2020, rejected the said applications by recording reasons that the plaintiff had failed to avail the opportunity earlier. 5. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff has already adduced evidence as PW1 and was cross-examined by the defendants’ counsel and no further evidence was adduced, and the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence and accordingly, DW1 was examined. However, the plaintiff could not cross examine DW1. Later, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid applications seeking to reopen the stage of further evidence of PW1, sought leave of the Court to produce certain documents, and also permission to cross- examine DW1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 6. It is further noticed that the affidavit accompanying the applications indicates that the plaintiff was able to find out the sought documents after completion of his evidence and on such discovery of the documents, he filed the applications seeking permission for production of the same. 7. It is required to be noticed that the suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction, and the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their case with regard to the reliefs sought and providing one opportunity to the plaintiffs would not cause any harm or prejudice to the other side, as the defendants would have an opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff's witness and also question the documents produced before the Court. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that the applications are filed when DW1 had already adduced the evidence. Hence, the said applications are required to be allowed on terms. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned common order dated 10.02.2020 passed on I.A. Nos.12 to 14 in O.S.No.27437/2009 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.12 under Section 151 of CPC, I.A.No.13 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.14 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs are allowed. iv) The Plaintiffs are permitted to lead further evidence by producing the documents sought to be produced in the applications and are also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34852 WP No. 5761 of 2020 permitted to cross-examine DW1, subject to the plaintiffs paying costs of Rs.10,000/-. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4