[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Girija vs Smt Saravamangala on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
WP No. 8478 of 2025
HC-KAR
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,
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S RESIDING AT No.59,
Location: High NEAR NAGESHWARA TEMPLE,
Court of BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
Karnataka
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)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
WP No. 8478 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18455
HC-KAR
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:
ORDER
(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
