- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1053/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE RAJA HOUSING LIMITED COMPANY PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS NO.13/3, G.D. CORN WELL CLINIC CORN WELL ROAD, LONGFORD TOWN BENGALURU-560025 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. RAJA DATTA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND: SUNDARA RAJU AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 1(a). SMT. S. SARASWATHI W/O LATE S. SUNDARRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 10TH CROSS SRI SRINIVASA TEMPLE MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086. 1(b) SMT. S. POORNIMA D/O LATE S. SUNDARRAJU W/O RAJASHEKAR MYSOREMATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 R/AT NO.35, NISARGA KUVEMPU MAIN ROAD VIGNANANAGARA BENGALURU-560075. 1(c) SMT. S. SAVITHA D/O LATE S. SUNDARRAJU W/O KARTHIK R. MAKAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 10TH CROSS NEAR SRI SRINIVASA TEMPLE BENGALURU-560075. 1(d) KUMARI SUNITHA SUNDAR RAJU D/O LATE S. SUNDARRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 10TH CROSS NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086. 1(e) SRI. NAGENDRA SUNDAR RAJU S/O LATE S. SUNDARRAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 10TH CROSS NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO & SRI. SUNIL SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVS., FOR R1(a -e)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN R.A.NO.28/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2020 passed on IA.No.11 in RA.No.28/2019 by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the Appellate Court'). 2. Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and possession. The trial court while partly decreeing the suit, declined to grant the relief of possession. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/original plaintiff preferred an appeal. In the said appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') was filed seeking permission to produce additional documents. It is submitted that the documents sought to be produced before the Appellate Court are plaint, written statement, an application filed for impleadment in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 OS.No.289/2016 and a certified copy of the order passed by the revenue authority. It is further submitted that the affidavit accompanying the application does not indicate any due diligence, or the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. However, the Appellate Court, without considering any of these aspects, proceeded to allow the application filed by the appellant/original plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.T.Sheshagiri Rao and Sri.Sunil Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) supports the impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that the respondent/original plaintiff in a suit before the trial Court, filed an application and produced the very same documents. However, the trial Court, without considering the said documents proceeded to partly decree the suit on 05.12.2018. It is submitted that the specific case of the respondent/original plaintiff before the trial Court was that the petitioner herein had encroached 1 acre of land in the suit schedule property. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 order to substantiate the said encroachment, the documents now sought to be produced are relevant, more particularly the Tahsildar in the revenue proceedings has clearly recorded a clear finding that the petitioner herein is in possession of the respondents' property. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be produced are necessary documents for a complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties, which has been rightly appreciated by the Appellate Court and has allowed the application and the same does not call for any interference in this petition. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent herein had filed a suit in OS.No.415/2004 seeking the reliefs of declaration and possession. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.12.2018, partly decreed the suit by declaring that the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the property bearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 Survey No.20 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, situated in Kamnahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. However, the suit was dismissed insofar as it related to the relief of possession of item No.1 of the 'B' schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiff preferred RA.No.28/2019. In the said appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC was filed by the appellant/original plaintiff seeking permission to produce additional documents, namely certified copies of the plaint, written statement, application filed under Order XXII Rule 10(2) of CPC in OS.No.289/2016 and also the certified copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk in RRT (D) 05/2008-09. 6. The affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that although the appellant had sought both declaration and possession, the trial Court granted only the relief of declaration while denying possession on certain grounds. It is condented by the appellant/original - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 plaintiff that the documents sought to be produced are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It is to be noticed that these documents were already produced before the trial Court, however, the Court, while partly decreeing the suit, did not consider them and proceeded to record findings only in respect of the relief of declaration while denying possession. Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC provides a party to produce additional documents if the trial Court refused to admit such a document in the evidence. 7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the original plaintiff/appellant in RA.No.28/2019 had produced the said documents before the trial Court. However, the trial Court has not recorded any finding as to whether the said documents were admitted in evidence or not. The contention of the respondent is that the said documents are essential to establish the claim for possession. Taking note of the said contention and considering the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court while allowing the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22221 W.P. No.1053/2021 application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, I am of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned order to set aside the same. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13