- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 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. 8478 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GIRIJA, D/O LATE RENUKA, W/O SRI NAGARAJ R. (BHEL), AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVADMAJA, No.12/13, DURGA PARAMESHWARI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARAVAMANGALA, W/O SRI B. L. BASAVARAJU, D/O LATE RENUKA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.59, NEAR NAGESHWARA TEMPLE, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BEGLUR (GANESHA BUILDING), BENGALURU 560 068. 2. SRI. N R MANJUNATH, S/O LATE RENUKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RA/T NO. 578, 3RD CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N.R. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-31) IN OS No.670/13 VIDE ON IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O VIII RULE 1 (A) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC DATED 27.01.2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Mohan Kumar N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. R. Girisha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition is filed by defendant No.3 in O.S. No.670/2013, challenging the order dated 27.01.2025 passed on I.A. No.25 by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, “the trial Court”), whereby the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is one for declaration and partition. It is contended that at the time of filing the written statement, the petitioner was not in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 of 2025 possession of the details and documents relating to the properties. It is further submitted that the suit schedule properties are ancestral in nature and that the petitioner is entitled to a share therein. It is contended that the said documents were neither made available to the petitioner nor were they within her knowledge, she being a married and residing in matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the other contesting defendants failed to furnish the property details and relevant documents, thereby preventing the petitioner from producing the same before the Court. 4. Sri N.R. Girisha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that the suit is of the year 2013 and that the written statement was filed on 14.08.2013, whereas the present application came to be filed on 30.11.2024, without any explanation for the inordinate delay. It is further submitted that the trial Court, having regard to the delay of more than eleven years in filing the application, has rightly rejected the same. 5. Though respondent No.1 is served, there is no representation. Hence, service is held sufficient. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 of 2025 6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. The suit, filed in the year 2013, is one for declaration and partition. The petitioner filed the written statement on 14.08.2013. I.A. No.25 has been filed seeking permission of the Court to produce certain documents and to condone the delay in their production. The affidavit filed in support of the application states that the said documents were received by the petitioner only recently. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being a married woman, did not have access to the property details or the relevant documents. It is submitted that respondent No.2 herein did not cooperate in furnishing either the property particulars or the necessary documents. It is further stated that the delay in producing the documents is attributable to the time taken in securing the same from the competent authorities. 9. Having considered the submissions, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition. The suit is one for declaration and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 of 2025 partition. The petitioner, being a married woman residing in her matrimonial home, cannot reasonably be expected to have access to the details of the properties or the relevant documents. It is not uncommon that in a partition suit instituted by a married female member, there may be a lack of cooperation from other family members in providing such details. In such circumstances, the petitioner would necessarily be required to obtain the documents from the competent authorities, who follow their own procedures and timelines for issuance of such documents. 10. It is not the case of the contesting respondents that the documents were in the possession of the petitioner and were deliberately withheld at the time of filing the written statement. When the documents are required to be procured from the competent authorities, the time consumed in obtaining them cannot be viewed with suspicion. 11. Moreover, a suit for partition among family members requires a comprehensive adjudication so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If the application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to produce the documents proposed in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18455 WP No. 8478 of 2025 I.A. No.25, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. On the contrary, it would aid the Court in effective and final adjudication the dispute between the parties. 12. In the light of the above, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order on I.A. No.25 dated 27.01.2025 in O.S. No.670/2013 is set aside. (iii) I.A. No.25 in O.S. No.670/2013 is hereby allowed. (iv) The trial Court is directed to take the documents stated in I.A. No.25 on record. (v) Considering suit is pending for more than 13 years, trial Court to expedite and avoid unnecessary adjournments. (vi) No orders as to costs. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24