Karnataka High Court
M/S Rakesh Builders And Developers vs V G Neelamma on 11 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
W.P. No.50305/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.50305/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAKESH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
NO.58, SILVER JUBILEE PARK ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. RAJIV KUMAR JAIN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA B.G. ADV.,)
Digitally signed
by RUPA V AND:
Location: High
Court of 1. V.G. NEELAMMA
karnataka W/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. V. SHAMALA
D/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. V. VEERABHADRA SWAMY
S/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
4. V. GAYATHRI DEVI
D/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
5. V. SOMANATH SWAMY
S/O LATE M. VEERAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. M. MUNUSWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
W.P. No.50305/2019
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.186
VISHVANILAYA
MURUGESHPALYA, HAL POST
BANGALORE-560 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1 TO R5
R6 ABATED V.O.DTD:09.09.2024)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 21.10.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH-67) IN
O.S.NO.3218/2005 ON THE I.A. DATED 05.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER
DIRECTING THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH-67) TO ALLOW THE IA DATED
05.11.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.3218/2005 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff has filed this petition seeking the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or similar Writ
or Order quashing the Order dated 21.10.2019,
passed by the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCCH-67), in
O.S.No.3218/2005 on the I.A. dated 05.11.2015 vide
Annexure-A.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or similar writ
or order directing the learned LXVI Additional City
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
HC-KAR
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCCH-67), to
allow the I.A. dated 05.11.2015 filed by the
petitioner in O.S.No.3218/2005 vide Annexure-G &
etc.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.Nanjundaradhya B.G., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with list of
witnesses, seeking to condone the delay in furnishing the said
list. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact, on
incorrect reasoning, rejected the application. It is submitted
that the Trial Court has further recorded a finding that the suit
is of the year 2005 and on that ground, this application came to
be rejected. He seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the
impugned order.
4. Per contra, Sri.Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel for
the contesting respondents supports the impugned order and
submits that the suit is for specific performance of the contract
which was filed in the year 2005 and subsequently, the
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
HC-KAR
petitioner has dragged the suit till this day and only in the year
2015, this application came to be filed though the issues were
already framed on 10.09.2007. He further submits that the
petitioner is not a diligent litigant and if any leniency is shown,
he would drag the proceedings further. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents and perused the material available on record.
6. The undisputed facts between the parties are that
the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.3218/2005 against the
respondents seeking to pass a judgment and decree directing
the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of
suit schedule property based on the sale agreement dated
25.07.2002. In the said suit, after framing of the issues, an
application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC came to be filed.
In the said application, at paragraphs 3 and 4, the petitioner
has explained the delay in filing the application and specifically
stated that he intends to examine the witnesses as per the list
of witnesses annexed to the said application. The Trial Court,
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
HC-KAR
without considering the aforesaid paragraphs has recorded the
finding that the pleading is bald and no specific statement is
made with regard to the necessity to examine the witnesses.
In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave
error in rejecting the application on technical grounds. No
prejudice would be caused to the other side if the application is
allowed on terms.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 21.10.2019 passed on
the application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.3218/2005
on the file of the LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bengluru, is set aside.
(ii) The application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed subject to
the petitioner paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC:20033
HC-KAR
(iii) Taking note of the fact that the suit is of year 2005,
the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as
early as possible.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
