- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2405 WP No. 913 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O. LATE. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT. NO.170, MITHILA, 12TH CROSS, OPP. G.D. NAIDU HALL, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RATHNAMMA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.442, 1ST FLOOR 11TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALORE – 560 080. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION/S SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/11/2025 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, IN O.S.NO.4872/2022, AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION IA.NO.5 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERES, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2405 WP No. 913 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.4872/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.5 by the VIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w 151 CPC for permission to produce the additional documents was allowed by the trial court by holding as under:- “ ORDER ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.V The plaintiff has filed interlocutory application No.V under Order VII, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant leave for production of the documents sought to be produced by her. It is stated that the proposed documents are the revenue documents which are obtained recently form the concerned authorities and they are necessary in the present suit. Hence, prays to allow I.A.No.V. 2. The defendant has filed objection to I.A. No.V and contended that the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff is not relevant to the matter in issue and not necessary to adjudicate the case. Hence, sought for rejection of the I.A.No.V. 3. Heard the arguments. 4. The Point that arise for consideration is:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2405 WP No. 913 of 2026 Whether the plaintiff has made out grounds for grant of leave to produce the documents sought to be produced by her? 5. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following. REASONS 6. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendant had denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit-schedule property and also disputed the identity of the property. Now, the plaintiff has filed the present application and sought for production of the sale deeds and encumbrance certificate. These documents are pertaining to the Survey No.98 of Jarkabande Kavalu village. The Defendant has disputed the identity of the suit schedule property is part of the land belonging to him in Survey No.98 of Jarakabande Kavalu Village. Though the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff pertains to the third party who are not parties to the present suit, those documents are in respect of the Survey No.98 of the Jarakabande Kavalu village. Since, the defendant is disputing the identity of the property of the plaintiff and contending that the suit schedule property is part of his land in Survey No.98 of the Jrakabande Kvalu village, the documents which the plaintiff intendeds to produce may throw some light on the disputed issue and it may help the Court for proper adjudication of the case. Hence, the application filed by the plaintiff deserved to be allowed. The delay caused in production of these - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2405 WP No. 913 of 2026 documents can be compensated by awarding the cost. Accordingly the following order is passed:- ORDER I.A.No.V filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the defendant. The plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents.” 2. The material on record discloses that the respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.4872/2022 against the petitioner – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendant and filed the written statement by disputing and denying the averments made in the plaint. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues for consideration and when the matter was set down for evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.5 for production of additional documents. The said application having been opposed by the defendant, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order by allowing the said application, aggrieved by which, the defendant is before this Court by way of the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2405 WP No. 913 of 2026 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial court was fully justified in allowing the application for production of additional documents as sought for by the respondent - plaintiff by passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor the same said to have occasioned any prejudice or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 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 Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.