- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22600/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NAWAZ PASHA .S S/O SYED SHAFI AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.125/B ILLIYASNAGAR MAIN ROAD J P NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560078. 2. TABASUM TAJ W/O SYED ISTHAK AHAMED D/O SYED SHAFFI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.160 SR. LAYOUT VIDYASAGAR SHIVARAM KRANTHI POST BANGALORE-560077. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSHI DATTATRAYA MADHAVA RAO, ADV.,) AND: 1. SHEEMA SIDDQA D/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2. ASMA SIDDQA D/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED 33 YEARS. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 3. S. IMRAN S/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED 32 YEARS. 4. S. SAGEER D/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED 30 YEARS. 5. SALMA SIDDQA D/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED 28 YEARS. 6. NIJMA SIDDQA D/O LATE SYED SHAFFI AGED 24 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.35/1 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS RANGANATHA COLONY GORIPALYA BANGALORE-560018. 7. R.Y. RAGHAVENDRA S/O N. RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED 32 YEARS R/AT SRI DESHNARAYANA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN BEHIND ECI FACTORY VIDYANAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADV., FOR C/R7 SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-K DTD 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-40) AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.8066/2013 ON IA NO.11 TO 14 & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.11 to 14 in O.S.No.8066/2013 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-40) (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. Sri.Joshi Dattatraya Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners- plaintiffs filed a suit for partition contending that the petitioners are the children of first wife of Sri.Syed Shafi. In order to prove their relationship and the right over the property purchased by their father, they intended to produce certain documents. Hence, applications in I.A.Nos.11 to 14 were filed to re-call PW-1 and to produce certain documents which came to be erroneously rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that similar applications - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 were rejected by the Court earlier. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed I.A.No.4 on 15.12.2016 and along with the said application, certain documents were enclosed which can be noticed from the order dated 15.12.2016. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 15.04.2021 on the ground that the application is not accompanied by the document. This compelled the petitioners to file the present applications which are necessary to adjudicate the suit as the petitioners are required to establish the relationship as well as the right over the property. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.O.Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Smt.S.P.Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 support the impugned order of the Trial Court and submit that this Court has stayed the suit filed by the petitioners and the respondent No.7 being the purchaser of the property for a lawful sale consideration is unable to put up the construction as the petitioners- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 plaintiffs have obtained the injunction order in the said suit. It is submitted that the filing of the present applications by the petitioners is at the fag end of the proceedings that too at the stage of arguments is an abuse of process of Court. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has clearly recorded the reasons that the petitioners are in the habit of filing frivolous applications as similar applications were rejected on earlier occasions and those orders have attained finality. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsels for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.8066/2013 for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 statement. It is to be noticed that the petitioners-plaintiffs have examined PW-1 and thereafter, filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of the documents as is evident from Annexure D to the writ petition. It is to be noticed that the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 15.04.2021. The said order has attained finality. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have also filed applications in I.A.Nos.7 to 9 under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing the xerox copies of the nomination form, re-open the case and seeking permission to lead further examination-in-chief of PW-1. Those applications were duly considered by Trial Court and rejected vide order dated 17.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed applications in I.A.Nos.11 to 14 seeking similar relief to recall PW-1 and seeking permission to produce the additional documents. The Trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021 Court, noticing the earlier orders has rightly come to the conclusion that filing of I.A.Nos.11 to 14 is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, rejected the said applications. I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to adduce the evidence and in the earlier orders passed by the Trial Court, similar applications were rejected which have attained finality. In view of the same, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22