[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt B V Kavitha vs Smt D R Hemalatha on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
WP No. 24371 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. 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,
Digitally
WIFE OF DR. RAMESH,
signed by AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
VINUTHA B S AND RESIDING AT
Location: High BELLALA BOMMASANDRA,
Court of D PALYA POST-561 206,
Karnataka
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.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
WP No. 24371 of 2025
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
WP No. 24371 of 2025
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
WP No. 24371 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18710
HC-KAR
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
