[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Ramesh Kumar vs Sri Abdul Rehman on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
WP No. 26209 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 26209 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. V. RAMESH KUMAR,
S/O K.H.VINJARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
PANCHAVATHI COLONY,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. SRI. BABULAL KHOTHARI,
S/O K.H.VINJARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
PANCHAVATHI COLONY,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by
SHARADAVANI
B (BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. SRI. ABDUL REHMAN,
S/O MOHAMMED ABDUL SAB,
AGED 70 YEARS,
2. SMT. HUMAYUN RAJIYA,
W/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
WP No. 26209 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI. ABDUL GHANI @
MAKSUD AHAMMED,
S/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4. SMT. BIBI FATHIMA BI @
KARISHMA BANU,
D/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SRI. MANSOOR,
S/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
6. SRI. MUHIBULLA,
S/O ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
M.K.K. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DATED 13.03.2026;
NOTICE TO R2 TO 6 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED
08.04.2026)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA ON I.A.NO.IX IN
O.S.NO.830/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE- A AND THEREBY REJECT
THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
WP No. 26209 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the Order dated
27.10.2022 passed by the V Additional Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C, Shivamogga on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.830/2015.
2. Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a
suit for injunction against the respondents herein and in
the said suit, petitioner No.2 has examined himself as PW1
before the Trial Court and thereafter, petitioner No.1 filed
an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief which came to
be opposed by the defendants and sought for striking off
the evidence, in the present application which came to be
allowed by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the
affidavits of PW1 and PW2 are replica and same contents
are found. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has
failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners are the
two plaintiffs in the suit and they have an independent
substantive right to adduce the evidence before the Trial
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
HC-KAR
Court and more particularly, petitioner No.1 intend to
produce registered sale deed dated 09.04.2007, pertaining
to Schedule 'B' property and not allowing to adduce
evidence would cause great prejudice to the plaintiffs.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Though the notice is served on the respondents,
there is no representation.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioners meticulously and perused the material
available on record.
5. The petitioners have filed O.S.830/2015 for relief of
permanent injunction against the defendants with regard
to Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties. The assertion
is made in the plaint that both the plaintiffs have acquired
Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties vide a registered
sale dated 09.04.2007 and they are in lawful possession
and the defendants are interfering with such a possession.
The records indicate that the respondents - defendants
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
HC-KAR
filed a detailed written statement denying the assertion
made in the plaint. Plaintiff No.2 filed an affidavit and
examined himself as PW1. The said witness was cross
examined by the defendants and thereafter, plaintiff No.1
has filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief
which was opposed by the defendants by filing an
application to strike off the evidence of PW2 on the ground
that PW1 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination
that he is deposing on behalf of another plaintiff and he
cannot be permitted to adduce evidence. The Trial Court
accepted the said version under the impugned order and
struck off the affidavit. It is to be noticed that both the
plaintiffs are claiming independent source of title and
possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the
Trial Court cannot deny the opportunity to adduce
evidence to plaintiff No.1. The assertion of the defendants
is that filing of the affidavit by plaintiff No.1 is an attempt
to overcome the admission in the evidence of PW1. It is to
be noticed that the Trial Court can always take note of
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
HC-KAR
such facts if PW2 makes such attempt to overcome any of
the admissions of PW2 during his evidence.
6. In my considered view, the Trial Court has
committed grave error in entertaining the application filed
by the defendants and striking off the evidence of plaintiff
No.1 / PW2 without any justifiable reason. It is also to be
noticed that plaintiff No.1 is claiming independent right
over the suit schedule 'B' property by virtue of a registered
sale deed dated 09.04.2007 and he intends to produce the
said document as evidence. Taking note of the same and
for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.10.2022
passed in O.S.No.830/2015 on I.A.No.IX is
set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.IX filed by the
defendants is rejected.
NC: 2026:KHC:19229
HC-KAR
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the
affidavit of PW2 and permit the defendant to
cross examine PW2.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
GH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
