- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 24371 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B. V. KAVITHA, WIFE OF A SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AND RESIDING AT 4982, 17TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. D. R. HEMALATHA, WIFE OF DR. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS AND RESIDING AT BELLALA BOMMASANDRA, D PALYA POST-561 206, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. T. SAROJAMMA, WIFE OF THYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AND RESIDING AT 46, 6TH MAIN, III STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, SHAKTHIGANAPATHY NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 079. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 3. SMT. S. NAGAMMA, WIFE OF P VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS AND RESIDING AT 5, (OLD No.8), 4TH CROSS, CUBBONPETE, BENGLAURU 560 002. 4. SMT. S. KANTHAMMA, WIFE OF HP RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT No.21, 14TH A CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU 560 079. 5. SMT. R. BHAGYALAKSHMI, WIFE OF LATE K. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AND RESIDING AT No.24, BULLET KRISHANPPA LAYOUT, THINDLU, BENGALURU 560 092. 6. SMT. YESHODA SURESH KUMAR, WIFE OF S SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AND RESIDING AT No.638, 8TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, II STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU 560 072. 7. SMT. S. KOMALA, WIFE OF G SHANTHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AND RESIDING AT No.227E, NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT, THIMMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, SHANKARNAG MAIN ROAD, III CROSS, WARD No.6, ANEKAL 562 106, BENGALURU DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 8. SMT. S VIJAYALAKSHMI, WIFE OF VG VISHWAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AND RESIDING AT VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, BEHD. SOWBHAGYA KALYANA MANTAPPA, HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL 562 106, BENGALURU DISTRICT. 9. THARAMANDALAPETE HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., GANIGARA C GALLI, JORIPETE, BENGALURU 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND TREASURER, REGISTER UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. 10. SMT. BHAVANI WIFE OF LATE H N ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 11. H A SUBRAMANYA SON OF LATE H N ASHWATH, MAJOR 12. H A PRATAP SON OF LATE H N ASHWATH, MAJOR. 13. SMT. H A SAVITHA, WIFE OF LATE H N ASHWATH, MAJOR RESPONDENTS 10 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT No.22/13, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, SK GARDEN, BENGALURU 560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 To R8; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025, NOTICE TO R9 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2.06.2025 PASSED ON IA No.17 IN OS No.7035/2025 BY THE LEARNED XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU, ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Y.T. Abhinay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Suresh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8. 2. This writ petition is filed by defendant No.6 in a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No.7035/2016, impugning the order passed on I.A. No.17 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the trial Court”). 3. Sri Y.T. Abhinay, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC seeking to produce the documents listed in I.A. No.16. The said application was allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes the original or duly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 certified copies of document Nos.2 and 3, by order dated 06.10.2023. 3.1 It is further submitted that the said conditional order came to be passed as the aforesaid documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act and were not duly certified. Learned counsel submits that, in order to comply with the conditions imposed by the trial Court while allowing I.A. No.16, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC to summon the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), and to secure production of the documents referred to therein. 3.2 It is contended that the trial Court, without considering its earlier order passed on I.A. No.16 and the fact that the petitioner was unable to obtain certified copies of the documents, as the same were not issued, rejected the application. It is further submitted that, had I.A. No.17 been allowed and the documents directed to be produced, the same would have assisted the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the dispute. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 4. Notice to respondent Nos.9 to 13 is dispensed with by order dated 17.09.2025. 5. Sri K. Suresh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8, submits that the documents which are the subject matter of I.A. No.17 are not relevant for adjudication of the dispute. Learned counsel further contends that such applications are filed only with a view to delay the conclusion of the suit. It is also submitted that, if the application is allowed and production of the documents sought therein is directed, the same would further protract the proceedings. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 8. 7. It is evident that the petitioner had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to produce certain documents, the total number of which is eight. The said application in I.A. No.16 was considered by the trial Court by order dated 06.10.2023. While allowing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 application, the trial Court imposed a condition that defendant No.6 (the petitioner herein) shall furnish the original or duly certified copies of document Nos.2 and 3. 7.1 In order to comply with the said condition, the petitioner filed I.A. No.17 seeking issuance of summons for production of the very same document Nos.2 and 3. However, the trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected the application without adverting to its earlier order passed on I.A. No.16. The earlier order itself indicates that, in response to the request made under the Right to Information Act, the BDA had furnished copies of the plan without authentication, which necessitated the imposition of the condition to produce the original or duly certified copies. 7.2 The trial Court further held that defendant No.6 had not assigned reasons for filing the application and had not demonstrated the relevance of the layout plan for adjudication of the case. Such a finding, in the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable, as it is not open to the trial Court to re-examine the relevance of the said documents while - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 considering I.A. No.17, in view of the findings already recorded while allowing I.A. No.16. 7.3 The trial Court also observed that the petitioner had not made efforts to secure certified copies from the competent authority prior to filing the application for summoning the documents. This finding is equally unsustainable. The material on record discloses that the petitioner had invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act and sought copies of the layout plan. The BDA authorities, in response, furnished copies without authentication, which led to the imposition of the condition in the order passed on I.A. No.16 requiring production of the original or duly certified copies. 7.4 Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court while rejecting I.A. No.17 are not in consonance with its earlier order passed on I.A. No.16. Further, had the application been allowed and summons issued to the BDA for production of the plan in question, the same would have facilitated effective adjudication of the dispute. It is also not in dispute that, in view of the order passed on I.A. No.16, the sanctioned plan is required to be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 taken on record, subject to compliance with the condition imposed therein. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 submits that the suit is of the year 2016 and that, when the matter was posted for final arguments, I.A. No.17 came to be filed only with a view to delay the conclusion of the suit. Though this Court does not find merit in the said submission, it cannot be overlooked that the suit is of the year 2016 and that the proceedings have now been relegated from the stage of final arguments to the stage of evidence. Such a course would, undoubtedly, cause inconvenience and prejudice to the respondents. 9. Ordinarily, this Court would refrain from directing the trial Court to dispose of the matter within a fixed time frame. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court is requested to expedite the disposal of the suit and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than one year from the date of receipt of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18710 WP No. 24371 of 2025 10. For the above reasons, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable. Hence, the following; Order (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order of the trial Court on I.A.17, dated 02.06.2025 is set aside. (iii) I.A.17 in O.S. No.7035/2016 is hereby allowed. (iv) The trial Court shall issue necessary summons fixing the date for compliance. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27