- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4486/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. HEMALATHA BASAVARAJ W/O LATE N. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.19, PRESTIGE CEDAR CONVENT ROAD BENGALURU-560025. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. P. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE R. PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.119/2, 4TH CROSS LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU-560027. 2. SMT. P. SAROJA D/O LATE R. PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.119/2, 4TH CROSS LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU-560027. 3. SMT. R. PADMA D/O LATE R. PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.119/2, 4TH CROSS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU-560027. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PADMAVATHI G.V. ADV., FOR R1 SMT. H.R. JAYALAKSHMI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH NO.19), ON THE IA's FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.8307/2000 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. ALLOW THE IA's FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.8307/2020 AND RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO GET THE SAME MARKED IN HER EVIDENCE & ETC. 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 21.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.8307/2000 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 19) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 2. Sri.M.J.Alva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents herein in O.S.No.7573/2000 for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. It is submitted that during the cross-examination, when a specific question was posed to the plaintiff with regard to certain documents, the plaintiff answered that she would place those documents before the Court. It is further submitted that in view of that specific cross-examination, applications were filed to recall PW-1 to adduce further evidence and to produce the documents. The said applications were rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly. It is also submitted that the case of the plaintiff is based on a Will executed by her father-in-law in favour of her husband. It is contended that in support of the said pleading and prayer, the documents to be produced are necessary. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the same, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 has proceeded to reject the applications. Hence, he seeks to allow the applications by permitting the plaintiff to produce the documents. 3. Per contra, Smt.Padmavathi G.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the writ petition and submitted that though the petitioner- plaintiff intends to produce the partition deed and the Will, there is no sufficient pleading to that effect in the plaint. It is submitted that no reasons are forthcoming in the applications for non-production of the original documents sought to be produced and there is no application filed by the plaintiff to accept the said documents as secondary evidence. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, considering all these aspects, rejected the applications which does not call for any interference in this petition. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.7573/2000 for the reliefs of declaration that the plaint 'A' schedule property belonged to the plaintiff, mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal structure put up on the suit schedule 'B' portion of Schedule 'A' property and other reliefs. The respondents opposed the said suit by filing a detailed written statement. The records indicate that the respondents also filed O.S.No.8307/2000 for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. It is informed that both the suits are being tried by the same Court. The petitioner had filed two applications, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), to re-call PW-1 for adducing further evidence and the other under Order VII - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 Rule 14(3) of the CPC for production of documents. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are the certified copy of the partition deed dated 20.05.1972 and the certified copy of the Will dated 21.09.1981 executed by Basavaraj in favour of the plaintiff's husband. The affidavit accompanying the said applications of the plaintiff indicates that during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, the learned counsel for the defendants asked a specific question with regard to the partition and the Will executed by the father-in-law of the plaintiff and to answer the said question, PW-1 has specifically agreed to produce the said documents before the Court. It is also averred that the plaintiff was not aware as to what are the documents produced along with the plaint and these documents are necessary as undertaken in the cross- examination. Hence, she sought for production of the documents. The Trial Court rejected the said application solely on the ground that it was filed belatedly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 6. It is to be noticed that during the cross- examination, a specific question was posed on PW-1 with regard to these documents, more particularly the partition and the Will which are the two documents necessary for the plaintiff to seek the reliefs in the suit filed by her. In my considered view, the rejection of the said application on the ground of delay is erroneous. Ultimately, the Court is required to exercise its discretion keeping in mind the purpose and intent for production of those documents. If the petitioner failed to produce those documents, the Court would have drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-production of those documents. Hence, I am of the considered view that the production of documents by the plaintiff would not cause any prejudice to the other side and therefore, both the applications are required to be allowed. 7. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the documents sought to be produced are the certified copies and no application is filed to consider those - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 documents as secondary evidence, the said contention cannot be appreciated at this stage as it is only for production of those documents. However, during the course of marking of those documents, it is always open for the defendants to raise such objections, if law permits. 8. With the above observations, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the applications on technicalities. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court on an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to re-call PW-1 for adducing further evidence and another application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC for production of documents in O.S.No.8307/2000, is set - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13069 W.P. No.4486/2021 aside. Consequently, both the applications are allowed. (iii) The Trial Court shall take the documents on record and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36