Karnataka High Court

Sri. Mazar Khan vs Smt Jameela Bhanu on 16 June, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:20637
                                                          W.P. No.3847/2020


                    HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                              DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                             WRIT PETITION NO.3847/2020 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. MAZAR KHAN
                   S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
                   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                   YARABNAGAR I BLOCK
                   NEAR WATER TANK ROAD
                   RAMANAGAR TOWN-591301.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S. ADV., FOR
by RUPA V              SRI. SUBBA SHASTRY N, ADV.,)
Location: High
Court of           AND:
karnataka
                   1.   SMT. JAMEELA BHANU
                        W/O FARUQUE PASHA
                        AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                        R/AT. RAHMANIYA NAGAR
                        HUNASANLI ROAD
                        OPP JAI BHARATH TENT
                        RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.

                   2.   SMT. SAMEERA BHANU
                        AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                        W/O SYED IMTIYAZ
                        RAHMANIYA NAGAR
                        HUNASANLLI ROAD
                        OPP JAI BHARATH TENT
                        RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.

                   3.   SMT. PASHIYA SIRAN
                        D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
                        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

                   4.   AKIL PASHA
                        S/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
                        AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:20637
                                   W.P. No.3847/2020


 HC-KAR




5.   SAKIL PASHA
     S/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

6.   SMT. SALMA BHANU
     D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

7.   SMT. ASMA BANU
     D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

8.   SMT. NAZIMA BANU
     D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

9.   SRI. ASLMA PASHA
     S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

10. SRI SHABANU @ LALAN PASHA
    S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

11. SRI. HANEEF PASHA
    S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

12. SMT. ZAHEERA @ BAZIPASHA
    D/O LATE MEHRUNNISSA
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

     RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 12 ARE
     RESIDENT OF RAHMANIYA NAGAR
     HUNASANLLI ROAD
     OPP JAI BHARATH TENT
     RAMANAGAR TOWN-562 159.

13. SMT. SYEDUNISSA
    W/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
    R/AT TIPPUNAGAR
    NEAR TIPPU MASJID
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.
                           -3-
                                NC: 2025:KHC:20637
                                W.P. No.3847/2020


HC-KAR




14. SRI. NASSIR KHAN
    S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
    R/AT YARABNAGAR I BLOCK
    NEAR WATER TANK ROAD
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-591 301.

15. SRI. APSHAR KHAN
    S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
    R/AT TIPPUNAGAR
    NEAR TIPPU MASJID
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.

16. SRI. JOHAR ALI KHAN
    S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
    R/AT TIPPUNAGAR
    NEAR TIPPU MASJID
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.

17. SRI AJAAR KHAN
    S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
    R/AT YARABNAGAR I BLOCK
    NEAR WATER TANK ROAD
    RAMANAGAR TOWN-591301.

18. SMT. BIBI AYESHA
    D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    R/AT. TIPPUNAGAR
    NEAR TIPPU MASJID
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.

19. SRI. SAMEER KHAN
    S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
    R/AT 2ND BLOCK
    NEAR WATER TANK ROAD
    YARABNAGAR
    RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.
                             -4-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:20637
                                        W.P. No.3847/2020


HC-KAR



20. SMT. ASIMA KHANUM
    D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    R/AT NO.471
    2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
    BANGALORE-560045.

21. SMT. RESHMA KHANUM
    D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    R/AT NO.3, OLD POLICE LANE
    C STREET MAKHAN ROAD,
    SHIVAJI NAGAR
    BENGALURU-560051.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(V/O/DTD:22.02.2021 NOTICE TO R13 TO R21 IS D/W
R1 TO R5 & R8 TO R12 ARE SERVED V/O DTD:25.4.2025
NOTICE TO R6 & R7 ARE D/W)
                            ---

      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO DISPOSAL OF I.A.NO.26 TO 28 DATED 27.01.2020
IN O.S.NO.136/2007 FILED FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE, RECALLING
THE PLAINTIFF WITNESS-PLAINTIFF NO.1(e) AND FOR PRODUCTION
OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA AND AFTER PERUSING THE
SAME WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, E AND D
RESPECTIVELY.   ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 29.01.2020 TO
THIS WRIT PETITION PASSED ON I.A.NO.26 TO 28 FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.136/2007 FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA BY SETTING ASIDE THE
SAME BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER ALLOW
THE I.A.NO.26 TO 28 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS FOR REOPENING,
RECALL AND PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS BEFORE
THE COURT BELOW & 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
                                      -5-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:20637
                                                    W.P. No.3847/2020


HC-KAR




                             ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

29.01.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.26 to 28 filed by the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.136/2007 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at

Ramanagara.

2. Heard.

3. Sri.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the father of the petitioner Ismail Khan had filed a

suit against the respondents for declaration that the original

plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'A' Schedule property, for a

mandatory injunction directing the respondents to demolish the

structure put up illegally by them in 'B' Schedule property and

for possession of 'B' Schedule property from the respondents.

The said suit was opposed by the respondents by filing written

statement. It is submitted that the original plaintiff Ismail

Khan died during the pendency of the said suit. The legal heirs

were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(j) who filed 3

applications namely I.A.Nos.26 to 28 for reopening the case,

recalling the evidence of plaintiff No.1(e) and for production of

additional documents to prove the averments made in the

NC: 2025:KHC:20637

HC-KAR

plaint. It is further submitted that the Trial Court framed the

issues and on 3 issues, the Trial Court casted the burden on the

plaintiffs. To discharge the said burden, the plaintiffs are

required to adduce the evidence as the original plaintiff died 5

years prior to the passing of the order. The plaintiffs are

required to be permitted to adduce the evidence by producing

the additional documents to prove that the original plaintiff was

in possession of the suit schedule property and that the

defendants have encroached upon 'B' Schedule property. The

documents, which they intend to produce are the relevant

documents which were not produced by the original plaintiff.

Hence, it has necessitated them to file these applications. The

Trial Court has recorded the finding that more than 5 years

prior to the passing of the order, PW-1 has been examined and

nothing prevented the plaintiffs to produce the documents at

that time. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the

ground that the suit is the oldest suit. It is also submitted that

if an opportunity is provided to the plaintiffs, they would

adduce oral evidence and also produce the documents to

substantiate the case. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:20637

HC-KAR

4. Though the notice on the respondents is served,

there is no representation.

5. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that

the father of the petitioner namely Ismail Khan filed

O.S.No.136/2007 seeking to pass a judgment and decree to

declare the original plaintiff as the absolute owner of 'A'

Schedule property, for a mandatory injunction directing the

defendants to demolish the structure put up illegally by them in

'B' schedule property and further prayer for possession of 'B'

Schedule property from the respondents. It is not in dispute

that the original plaintiff died and thereafter the petitioner and

the other legal heirs of the original plaintiff were brought on

record who filed applications in IA Nos.26 to 28 for reopening

the case, recalling the evidence of plaintiff No.1(e) and for

production of additional documents. The averments made in

the aforesaid applications indicate that the legal heirs of the

original plaintiff were not aware of the pendency of the said

suit. Later, they came to know that crucial documents were

not produced by their father at the time of evidence and those

documents are necessary to decide the lis between the parties.

NC: 2025:KHC:20637

HC-KAR

Though it is not in dispute that the applications were filed

belatedly and there is no reason justifying the delay in

producing the documents now sought to be produced along

with applications, however, interest of justice would be met if

an opportunity is provided to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence

and to produce the documents relied in the application filed

under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The order sheet indicates that the aforesaid suit filed by the

original plaintiff has been stayed by this Court. The defendants

are yet to adduce evidence in the suit and for providing

sufficient opportunity to the plaintiffs, these applications are

required to be allowed on terms and allowing these applications

would not cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, the

applications are required to be allowed on terms.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed on

I.A.Nos.26 to 28 in O.S.No.136/2007 on the file of

NC: 2025:KHC:20637

HC-KAR

the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara, is

set aside.