- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.10635/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PUTTASHAMACHARI S/O LATE NANJUNDACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1565 15TH CROSS, KRISHNA BAKERY ROAD T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057 SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LR. 1(a) RAVINDRA P S/O LATE PUTTASHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.10, YASH ENCLAVE SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT SIDADEHALLI, BENGALURU-560073. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. VISMAYA D.A. ADV., FOR MR. P.N. HEGDE, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. NANJACHARI S/O LATE NANJACHARI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O NANJACHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT SHIVAGANGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK 3. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HER LR’S. 4. SRI. T. GANGAIAH S/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 5. SRI. T. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. [AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DTD:27.03.2024] ALL ARE R/AT MACHANAHALLI VILLAGE BILLANAKOTE POST SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G. NATARAJU, ADV., FOR R3 TO R5 [ABSENT] V/O/DTD:01.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O/DTD:16.07.2026, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:01.02.2019 [ANNEXURE-A] PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, REJECTING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS i.e. I.A.NO.12 TO 14 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION I.E., I.A.NO.12 TO 14 (ANNEXURE-D, E AND F) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction or order setting aside the order dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure – A) passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No.257/, rejecting the interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.12 to 14 and consequently allow the interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.12 to 14 (Annexure-D, E and F); ii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Miss.Vismaya D.A., learned counsel appearing for Sri.P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff adduced the evidence, defendants examined DW1 and filed affidavit. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for the cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiff filed IA.Nos.12 to 14 seeking reopening of the stage of plaintiff's - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 evidence, recall of PW1 and lead further evidence by producing certain documents, which came to be rejected by the trial Court erroneously. It is submitted that relief sought in the suit is of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.07.2004 executed in favour of defendant No.3 is a fraudulent document. In order to prove the same, the charge sheet material is necessary. It is further submitted that along with the charge sheet, the investigation officer has secured the expert's opinion i.e. fingerprints examination report which would aid the trial Court in considering the relief of declaration. It is also submitted that the charge sheet was filed after the plaintiff's evidence. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 5. The plaintiff filed OS.No.257/2008 seeking a declaration that the he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit schedule property; a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.07.2004, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala in respect of the suit schedule property executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is fraudulent, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, defendant No.3(c) filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff adduced the evidence as PW1. Thereafter, the defendants adduced the evidence, and the matter was posted for the cross-examination of DW1. At that stage, the plaintiff filed IA.No.12 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), IA.No.13 under Section 151 of the CPC, and IA.No.14 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking reopening of the plaintiff’s evidence, recall of PW1, and permission to PW1 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 to lead further evidence by producing certain documents. The defendants opposed the applications. The trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that documents sought to be produced had no bearing on the relief claimed in the suit. 6. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiff is specifically seeking a relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.07.2004 is a fraudulent document. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff intends to rely upon the charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police against the defendants. It is specifically asserted that along with the charge sheet, the investigation officer has secured the questioned documents’ examination report and the fingerprint expert’s opinion certificate. The specific contention is that these documents are necessary to establish factum of the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.07.2004 is a fraudulent document. Since, the charge sheet came to be filed after the plaintiff had - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 concluded his evidence, the documents could not have been produced earlier. In my considered view, the said documents sought to be produced would aid the trial Court in considering the plaintiff’s prayer for a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.07.2004 is fraudulent. The trial Court, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the applications solely on the ground that the documents had no bearing on the relief sought. Considering the averments made in the affidavits accompanying the applications, I am of the view that the applications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed on IA.Nos.12 to 14 in O.S.No.257/2008 is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.12 to 14 filed by the plaintiff are allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073762019 NC: 2026:KHC:37684 W.P. No.10635/2019 iii. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to lead further evidence by producing the documents sought to be produced. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18