- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 826 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VANI MATAPATHI W/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO. 1040, SHANTI NIKETHAN 1ST STAGE, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SHIVAKUMARA SWAMI EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR DODDALINGAIAH MATAPATHI S/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.123, GRAYHAWK WAY S, MECHANICSBURG – PA 17050, USA 2. SMT. PRABHAVATHI VEERAPPA DHONDE W/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.123, GRAYHAWK WAY S, MECHANICSBURG – PA 17050, USA 3. SMT. SHAKUMNTALA MATHAPATI D/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 11809, AVALYA LANE, CHOLOTTE , NC. 2877, USA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN O.S.NO.1/2023 ON IA VI UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 AND 7 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRODUCED AT ANNX-A CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA VI UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 AND 7 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AT ANNX-K IN O.S.NO.1/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE CHITRADURGA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.1/2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short “the Trial Court) is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, whereby the application, I.A.No.6 filed by the respondents-defendants, under Order XVI Rule 6 & 7 CPC seeking issuance of witness summons to the witnesses described in the application, was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In the impugned order, the Trial Court held as under: “ORDER ON IA NO.VI This application is filed under Order XVI Rule 6 & 7 R/W/S.151 of CPC by the defendants seeking to issue witness summons to the witnesses described in the application. It is contested by the plaintiff by filing her written objections. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 2. I have heard the arguments of Smt. DKS advocate for the defendants and Sri BVG advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the case file. Now the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the defendants have shown that it is just and expedient to allow their application? 2. What Order? 3 On going through the case file and submissions canvassed by both side as well as decisions reported at 2012 AIAAR (Civil) 728 (Union of India V/s Ibrahim Uddin & another), AIR 2024 SC 1310 (Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By LRs. V/s V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok & Ors) & 2003 AIR Kar.86 (Smt. Nalini Sunder V/s Sri G.V. Sunder) relied by Sri BVG advocate and on keen verifying of the case file and prayer made in the IA, my finding on the above points are as under:- Point No.1 - In the Affirmative Point No.2 As per below, for the following: REASONS 4. Point No.1: The factual matrix of the case would show that the plaintiff herein filed P&SC 9/2023 claiming herself as wife of one S.S. Mathapathi and prayed for probate in respect of the properties described in the petition schedule belonging to the said person. When the public notice of the petition was caused, in response thereto, the defendants appeared and they filed their written statement and counter - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 claim by contending that the defendant No.3 is the wife and defendant No.1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the said Mathapathi and they denied the marital status of the plaintiff with the said person. On account of the dispute raised by the defendants, as contemplated U/Sec.295 of Indian Succession Act, the said summary proceeding was converted in to original suit and issues were framed and thereafter the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and she examined two witnesses as PW 2 & 3 on her behalf. At that stage the defendants filed IA No.5 to amend their written statement-cum-counter claim and it was allowed by this court vide order dated 06.08.2025. Now the said order is under challenge by the plaintiff in W.P.No.25686/2025 (GM-CPC) Here itself 1 would like to place it on record that in the said W.P Hon'ble High Court stayed only the order on IA No.V and it clarified that the proceedings before this court in the suit are not stayed, as such this court is proceeding with the matter . It is also necessary to make not that after disposal of that IA No.V, the defendants issued a notice to the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC seeking direction to her to produce the documents as listed in that notice. Upon hearing both side, the said notice was accepted by this court vide order dated 17.10.2025 and the plaintiff was directed to produce the documents as called in it, on or before 11.11.2025. The order sheet proceedings would show that inspite of such direction by the court, it was not complied by the plaintiff, therefore this court made an observation on 11.11.2025 that as she has failed to produce the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 documents, necessary inference shall be drawn at the appropriate time. 5. Then came the IA in hand by the defendants seeking to examine 1. The Manager of Davanagere-Harihara Urban Co- operative Bank, Davanagere, 2. Manager. Canara Bank, Crescent Road, MC Colony, Vidyanagar, Davanagere, 3. Manager, State Bank of India, PJ Extension Branch, Davanagere & 4. Regional Transport Officer. Davanagere with a direction to them to produce the documents as stated in the application and also to give evidence. 6. It is strongly contested by the plaintiff with a preliminary objection that when the defendants have not adduced their own evidence, it is not open for them to ckemine the witnesses on their behalf it was contended by Sri BVG advocate that it is quite unknown to the procedure that even before the defendants step in to witness box, they can be permitted to lead evidence of their witnesses. In this regard I would straight away take to the Order of XVIII Rule 3-A of CPC, which reads that where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the court. for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. Perhaps in its true spirit, the defendants are not willing to adduce their evidence at the very beginning of their defence evidence for the reason that though they have carried out amendment in pursuance to the order passed by this court on IA No.V, because of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. cited above, they - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 cannot lead evidence on their behalf by eschewing the amendment they have effected to their written statement and counter claim. At the same time this court is also not required to look in to the amended pleadings of the defendants while deciding this application in hand. 7. During the arguments Smt. DKS advocate canvassed that since the order on IA No V is impugned in the said W.P. and Hon'ble High Court has stayed the said order, it is not possible for the defendants to adduce their evidence by leaving the amendment they have brought to their pleadings, so she submitted that as already the Hon'ble High Court has permitted this court to proceed with the case in hand, in order to avoid unnecessary loss of time she is proceeding to examine the witnesses on behalf of the defendants. 8. According to me the said submission cannot be or gainsaid in the context of the facts prevailing in this case as well as the power vested to this court in pursuance to Rule 3- A of Order XVIII to permit the parties to examine their witnesses, even before they adduce their own evidence Therefore in exercise of the said power, in order to avoid delay in the progress of the case it is just and necessary to proceed with the recording of evidence of witnesses of the defendants. So the objection raised by the plaintiff to this extent would fall to the ground 9 Then it was contended by Sri BVG advocate that in one IA, the defendants are seeking multiple reliefs which is impermissible in law. According to him with the IA in hand - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 the defendants are not only seeking leave of the court to file list of witnesses on their behalf, even they are seeking to summon the said witnesses to produce the documents and also to adduce evidence on those documents. Thus according to learned counsel three reliefs cannot be sought in one application. On hearing the learned counsel, I afraid one cannot split such a comprehensive prayer in that manner. The plaintiff has totally misunderstood the order XVI and Rules framed their under. It is not that the defendants are seeking multiple prayers in one IA, rather they are seeking leave of this court to examine the witnesses on their behalf by summoning them to produce the documents. In this regard on reading Order XVI which deals with summoning and attendance of witness, absolutely I do not find any substance or force in the submission of Sri BVG advocate with respect to the application in hand . As per the Rule 5 & 6 of Order XVI while seeking permission to examine witnesses listed in the IA, the defendants are also seeking summons to them to produce the documents and to give evidence on them. In the event if only list of witnesses is furnished by them with two more IAs seeking to summon the said witnesses and to produce the documents as desired by the plaintiff, certainly the same would have been attacked by plaintiff by stating in each IA that there is no nexus to the suit and the purpose of examining the said witnesses etc., etc. Moreover as mentioned above as per Rule 5 & 6 of Order XVI when court issues summons to the witnesses, it has to specify the time, place and purpose of attendance of that witness in that summons and if a summons is issued to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 produce the documents, the description of the documents has to be stated. That being the case absolutely there is no force in the submission of Sri BVG advocate that through IA in hand, the defendants are seeking multiple prayers in one IA. Infact by filing IA and by providing particulars of the documents the defendants have to produce and give evidence, the defendants have made the things clear to the witnesses to be summoned without leaving any ambiguity In view of this any kind of technical objection raised by the plaintiff is unsustainable and accordingly it is rejected. 10. Thirdly it was contended by Sri BVG advocate that without their being any foundation in the pleading, the defendants are seeking to examine so many witnesses, therefore in the light of decisions he has relied, it is not permissible to receive such evidence . I have gone through the decisions cited by him. In all those cases it is held by the Hon'ble Courts that party to a suit cannot be permitted to adduce evidence in the absence of pleading to that effect. One cannot dispute the said fundamental of pleadings and evidence. The peculiar facts of this case would show that, even in the absence of amended pleadings of the defendants, what can be seen is that making scathing attack on the character and conduct of the plaintiff and also her claim that she is the wife of said S. S. Mathapathi, the defendants have narrated how she gained entry in their family, its affairs and how she was able to take control of the affairs of their family and said S.S. Mathapathi in their absence. They also allege that by creating many documents, deeds and transactions with respect to many valuable - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 properties belonging to them, the plaintiff has got changed them in her name and in the name of her associates and she has disposed off many such properties and has converted them in to debt; that she knocked the entire cash on hand and has also lavishly spent the amounts standing in the credit of the bank accounts and she has recovered loans advanced by the said S.S Mathapathi and she got entered her name as his wife in the death certificate fraudulently and on the death of said person, when the defendants No.3 (infact it ought to have been pleaded as the defendant No.1) tried to open his father's bed room, the plaintiff did not allow him to open by locking the said room and on the basis of fraudulent documents, she is proclaiming herself as wife of Late Mathapathi and by playing fraud and undue influence on to the said person she got created the Wills and has said some of the properties, yet she is trying to swallow the remaining properties. Pleadings to this effect can be seen in para (i) to of the written statement and in para. (1) they aver that they have incurred heavy loans at the advise of their father (S.S. Mathapathi) and invested huge amounts on many properties at Davanagere, Challakere and Vijayapura etc. with a hope of secured future life at India. Thus they have Iaid enough foundation in the form of pleading on the alleged misdeeds of the plaintiff 11. I repeat that I am not looking at the amended pleadings and the above references are extracted from para (j) to (s), which are part of their written statement-cum- counter claim dated 07.06.2024. It is also necessary to advert to the para.5 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff has also - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 stated that items at Sl.No.1 and 2 have been sold in auction by Davanagere-Harihara Urban Co-operative bank and in respect of items at Sl.No.6 to 9 are concerned i.e., the deposits shown, she don't want to claim them as they are already settled, so she is confining her claim only with respect to Sl. No.3 to 5, the remaining sites ie., Site Nos.22, 32, 45, 60, 61, 62, 49 & 50 etc. Thus she has narrated regarding fate of some of the properties which are under attack by the defendants. Based on the pleadings of the parties issues have been framed by the court. 12. So when that is the case, in order to substantiate their so called allegations, if the defendants take summons to the bank managers as they have contended that they were not allowed to have access to the bed room of S.S. Mathapathi by this plaintiff, one cannot et them to furnish all those details in their written statement itself. Thus through IA in hand they are making an attempt to get records and also to place evidence on record in order to prove their so called allegations. In the given peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that no proper foundation is laid by them in the form of pleadings so as to examine the witnesses sought to be summoned. 13. One more aspect is that when notice was issued to the plaintiff to produce the documents, as noted above she did not produce them. In her objection statement to the IA at para 11, the plaintiff has stated that she has challenged the said order by filing W.P and notice has been issued in that case to the defendants herein. Though she made such claim - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 she did not disclose or narrate the W.P number. In the absence of such particulars, it cannot be said that she has challenged the said order dated 17.10.2025. According to me as the plaintiff did not comply that notice having no other option the defendants have moved the application in hand. Therefore they cannot be prevented from placing the evidence in support of their allegations. 14. It was contended by Sri BVG advocate that without furnishing bank account particulars, the defendants are seeking information from the banks and when Mr. S.S. Mathapathi is not the only the customer of the bank, it may not be possible for the banker to produce the documents and to give evidence by tracing them from the records. According to me the learned plaintiff's counsel is still in good old days of searching the documents with human agency. It is needless to say that now the all the banks have working with computer systems, so information with respect to any known individual can be fetched at a finger tip without any difficulty. Especially when there is an allegation against the plaintiff that she did not allow the defendant No:1 to enter in to the bed room of the deceased Mathapathi and to see the property records and bank accounts of the deceased, now she cannot tum around and insist them to furnish the bank account particulars. 15. Moreover when the plaintiff herself remained silent without obeying the order of this court dated 17.10.2025, it is too much for her to contend that, the defendants have to furnish the details of the bank accounts. with all particulars. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 Therefore being convinced about the grounds urged in the application and also to avoid matter. unnecessary prolonging the till of W.P.No. 25686/2025 is disposed off, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in that case, it is just and necessary to proceed with this matter by examining the witnesses for the defendants. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, I answer point in hand in the affirmative. 16. Point No.2: In view of my above findings, I proceed to make the following: ORDER IA No VI is allowed Office to issue summons to the witnesses, described in the application with a further direction to them to produce the documents and also to give evidence on them by 17.01.2026. Witness summons shall be issued if necessary process fee is paid , with an intimation to the witnesses that batta will be paid to them on their appearance. 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 826 of 2026 exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is entitled to examine/cross-examine the proposed witnesses on all aspects of the matter and it cannot be said that prejudice would be cause to the petitioner by allowing the application, as correctly held by the Trial Court. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61