- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8THDAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 22231 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. K.KALEGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2113, 14THMAIN, 9THCROSS,KODIHALLI, HAL 3RDSTAGE, BENGALURU-560008. AND ALSO R/AT NO. 35, 1STMAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-72. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.K.POONACHA S/O T.K.KARYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BADAGARAKERI VILLAGE, VEERAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571249. 2. SRI. A.B.PURANAKAR DEAD BY HIS LR’S, RESHMAI D/O LATE A.B.PURNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 3. GOWTHAM RAJ S/O LATE A B PURNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. ANAND S/O LATE A B PURNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. DATHA S/O LATE A B PURNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.171,OPP KAMATH HOTEL, NEAR KALBURGI, CENTRAL BUS STAND, M.S.K. MILL ROAD,SHANTHINAGAR, KALBURGI-585103. 6. SMT. RAJANA BI @ MUNIRA MUTHUM SAB NISHANADAR @ MUNIRA INAM HUSSAIN MADARE, (WRONGLY STYLING HERESELF AS BASAMMA) W/O MIYA KHAN,CHOUDHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT (AS SHOWN IN THE PLAINT) WORKING AS A SCHOOL TEACHER, THE GOKAK MILLS PRIMARYSCHOOL, GOKAK FALLS, BELAGAUM DISTRICT-591301. 7. TUKARAM HUSBAND OF BASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RA/T KHADIJANDA VILLAGE, BASVAKALYANA TALUK, BIDAR DISTRICT-585 327. 8. THE BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 9. THE REVENUE OFFICER, BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JEEVAN BHEMA NA4GAR RANGE, WARD NO.74, KODOHALLI HAL 3RDSTAGE, BENGALURU-560008. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 01.09.2022 IN O.S. NO. 494/2006 ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, IN O.S. NO. 494/2006 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-D. 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 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking to challenge an order dated 01.09.2022 in O.S.No.494/2006 passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”).By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has rejected an application under Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 issue summons to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority to produce certain documents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court without any finding being given. He submits that it is settled law that in order to reject an application, findings must be given. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff affirms this contention. He further contends that he would like to file objections to this application. 4. A perusal of Impugned Order shows that the learned Trial Court has held that in view of the fact that four weeks time had been given by the High Court in W.P.No.2546/2022 to conclude the evidence in the suit, the application could not be examined and the same has been rejected. The Impugned Order being brief is extracted below: “Defendant counsel filed IA U/o 16 Rule 6 of CPC and plaintiff counsel filed to IA 3 U/o 8 Rule 17 of CPC and U/s under section 151 of CPC of CPC since that WP2546/22 Hon’ble High Court has fixed 4 weeks time for conclude of evidence of defendants and along with 4 weeks time is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 complete this Court has no power to extend the time fixed by Hon’ble High Court and also the IA filed by the plaintiff and defendants today are rejected. For arguments. call on 07.09.2022. 5. Concededly, no finding has been given by the learned Trial Court at the time of rejection of this application and as stated above, no objections were filed or arguments heard by the learned Trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that he may be permitted to file objections and on the next date of hearing, the arguments in this Application may be heard by the learned Trial Court. 7. This suggestion is acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1. 8. Accordingly, and with the consent of parties and in the interest of expediency, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) Respondent No.1/plaintiff shall file objections to the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC,1908 within two weeks from today. The rejoinder, if any, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1172 WP No. 22231 of 2022 shall be filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 within one week thereafter. ii) The application shall be heard and decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law on the next date of hearing. iii) The rights and contentions of both parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. iv) No unnecessary adjournments shall be taken by either party. v) The Registry is directed to convey a copy of the order to the learned Trial Court. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16.1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA