- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 20857 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.N.KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKAKOLIGA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANJANAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2. SMT JAYAMMA W/O GUMMANNA SINCE DEAD, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 ARE TREATED AS LRS. 3. SRI RAMANJANAPPA S/O GUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 4. SRI MURTHY S/O GUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 5. SMT SHAILAJA D/O GUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 6. SRI ANANDA KUMAR S/O GUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7. SMT MANJULA D/O GUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 8. SMT KRISHNAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA SINCE DEAD, RESPONDNETS 9 AND 10 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R8. 9. SMT NAGAVENI D/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 10. SMT RATHNAMMA D/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 11. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O MUNISHAMAPPA DIED ISSUELESS, NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 12. SMT SAKRAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 13. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 14. SRI MUNINARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAKOLIGA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VASUNDARA.T.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1, AND ALSO FOR R5, 7, 9, 10, 12 AND 13 (V/O/D 06.03.24); V/O/D R3 TO 7 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R2; R9 AND R10 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R8; R11 HAS NO LR'S; R3, R4, R6 AND R14 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.683/2015 ON AT I.A.NO.16 DATED 09.09.2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.683/2015 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, an application under Order XII Rule 8 Read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 has been rejected by the Learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that he had filed an application under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC seeking production of two registered Release Deeds dated 20.11.1978 and 12.11.1980. 3. The learned Trial Court however relied on the fact that certified copies of release deeds have already been produced. In addition, the learned Trial Court gave a finding that merely - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 because the documents have been marked in evidence subject to objections raised by the plaintiffs, does not make it necessary for production of its original before the Court. Thus, the learned Trial Court had held that the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is rejected. 4. Order XII Rule 8 of CPC is a Notice to produce documents, which is given by one party to another during the pendency of legal proceedings and reads as follows: "8. Notice to produce documents.—Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No.12 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the Service of any notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, and of the time when it was served." [Emphasis supplied] 4.1 A plain reading of the provision shows that the provision itself does not provide for any rejection. It merely sets out the procedure for issue of notice. 5. The effect of production or non-production of these documents is something which is to be examined by the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022 Court in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Trial Court however has held that the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 is rejected. 6. The impugned order to the extent that it rejects the notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is set-aside. The petition is disposed of granting the petitioner liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law for redressal of his grievances. 7. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA