- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11582 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S. C. GAYATHRI, D/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, SATHAYANARAYANA ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA, KAVERINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SIDDAGANGABIKA W/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS WHO ARE ALREADY IN RECORDS. SRI. S. C. UMAKANTHA, D/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO.157, BANASHREE 6TH CROSS, WARD NO.128, TEACHERS COLONY NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 072. 2. SRI. S. C. SHIVAPRAKASH, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 9TH ‘A’ CROSS 3RD MAIN, LIG QUARTERS, KENGERI UPANAGAR, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 NEAR HOYSALA CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 060. WORKING AS: CLERK TEACHER R.V. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 059. 3. SRI. S. C. YOGESHWARA, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.666, 17TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. 4. SRI S. C. RAVISHANAKAR, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.666, 17TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. 5. SMT. ASHA, D/O THIMMEGOWDA M., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNICIPAL NO. 50/9, 3RD CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, PSD QUARTERS OPPOSITE, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE WARD, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S. A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.06.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.1261/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.3-4-2025 PASSED ON IA NO.21 FILED BY RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC 1908, IN O.S.1261/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 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 plaintiff in OS No.1261/2015 on the file of LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), is directed against the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXI whereby the said application filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 seeking for permission to mark the registered Will dated 02.06.2000 which was in the safe custody of the trial Court 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. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, both parties went to trial, during the course of which they adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 their respective claims. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and documentary evidence was produced by him. After completion of defendant's evidence and when the matter was listed for final arguments, defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed the instant application IA No.XXI seeking permission to mark the alleged Will dated 02.06.2000, which was in the safe custody of the trial Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner who interalia contended that without examining the attesting witness to the alleged Will, it was impermissible for the defendants to mark or tender the said document in evidence. By the impugned order, the trial Court proceeded to allow IA No. XXI, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in IA No.XXI, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 merely seek to mark the alleged Will dated 02.06.2000, which undisputedly had been kept in the safe custody of the trial Court. It is needless to state that mere marking of the alleged Will dated 02.06.2000 would not tantamount to proof of the execution, attestation, validity, admissibility etc., of the said Will and all issues in this regard would necessarily have to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 be decided only after a full-fledged trial. It is also pertinent to note that while allowing IA No.XXI, the trial Court has not rendered any finding as regards the due execution, attestation, validity of the Will, testamentary capacity of the testator etc., and all those issues would have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. 5. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff if the Will was marked as an exhibit since plaintiff would be entitled to cross examine DW1 or DW2 in relation to all documents including the alleged Will and put forth all contentions regarding admissibility, proof, validity, probative value etc., which would have to be considered by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. 6. Under these circumstances, 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 have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) The respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 are permitted to get the alleged Will dated 02.06.2000 marked as an Exhibit on their behalf. iii) It is however made clear that the marking of the said alleged Will dated 02.06.2000 would be subject to the rival contentions regarding admissibility, proof, probative value, relevance, validity, testamentary capacity of the testator etc., and all such contentions are directed to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to cross examine DW1 and DW2 with reference to the alleged Will - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:931 WP No. 11582 of 2025 dated 02.06.2000 and also all other documents produced by the defendants. v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. vi) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33