Sri P Venkatesh Vs Sri C K Prasad

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.30754 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI P VENKATESH S/O LATE.PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.404, OLD KHB OFFICE ROAD KADUGODI BENGALURU -560 067 REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI.YOHITHKUMAR.P S/O SRI.PRATHAPSUNDAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 1^ST CROSS SUNRY LAYOUT, JINKETHIMMANAHALLI VARANASI, NEAR BLUE LOTUS PARK APARTMENT VARANASI BENGALURU-560 036

¶8

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶9

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

… PETITIONER (BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SHANKAREGOWDA V.N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI C.K.PRASAD S/O LATE.CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.684, C BLOCK 1^ST MAIN, AECS LAYOUT KUNDLAHALLI BENGALURU-560 037.

¶13

SMT.C.CHITRA D/O LATE.CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

R/AT NO. 1517, TIRUMALA 17^TH MAIN, J.P NAGAR 2^ND PHASE BENGALURU-560 078.

¶17

SMT.CHETANA D/O LATE.CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.33, 1^ST MAIN 1^ST STAGE AREKERE, MICO LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 076.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.V.NAGAREDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1, R-2 & R-3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 4^TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 161/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard learned senior counsel – Sri Udaya Holla appearing on behalf of learned counsel – Sri Shankare Gowda V.N. for petitioner as well as learned counsel – Sri V. Nagareddy for caveator/Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.2 &3.

¶24

The present writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated 23.9.2025 passed by the 4^th Addl. Senior Civil

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru, in O.S.

¶29

No.161/2019.

¶30

It is the case of petitioner that the respondents filed the suit in O.S. No.161/2019 for the relief of declaration, injunction and for other reliefs against the present petitioner and others. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner/4^th defendant filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, to produce the entire Land Tribunal, Hosakote records pertaining to Case No.LRF(B) D S 924/75-76 between Yallappa Reddy and Y. Shivappa from his custody. Objections were filed by the plaintiffs to this application. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court rejected the application by the impugned order dated 23.9.2025. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶31

“It is stated by defendant no.4 he has applied for documents under RTI Ac, but an endorsement stating that there are no documents found in the records before Tahsidlar is given. However, defendant no.4 has not produced any such

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

endorsement before this court which has been obtained under RTI as alleged by him. Hence, in the absence of any such endorsement the contention of defendant no.4 cannot be believed. Moreover, the document sought for production of public documents. The defendant no.4 ought to have obtained certified copies of those documents or any endorsement issued by the concerned authority. Without any such endorsement this Court cannot issue direction to the revenue authority to produce case records of LRF case before this Court. “

¶36

Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner/4^th defendant reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contends that the trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record dismissed the application filed by petitioner/defendant no.4. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel files a memo alongwith the Endorsement dated 22.09.2025 bearing No.RK/CR/1160/2025-26 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, wherein it is categorically stated that no documents pertaining to Sy.Nos.78, 81 and 89

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

relating to case No.LRF(B) D S 924/75-76, are found in the records of the Tahsildar.

¶40

Apparently, it is necessary for the trial Court to consider the Endorsement, which is now produced before this Court. The respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to object the endorsement, which is now produced, which shall be placed before the trial Court for further consideration.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the Endorsement dated 22.09.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru East taluk and hear both sides and so also objections, if any of the plaintiffs and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶42

Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

i) The petition is allowed .

¶45

ii) The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by 4^th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru in O.S. No.161/2019 is hereby set aside.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:40982 WP No. 30754 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

iii) The trial Court shall consider the Endorsement dated 22.09.2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru East taluk bearing No.RK/CR/1160/2025-26 and hear both sides and so also objections, if any of respondents/plaintiffs and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶50

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶51

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri P Venkatesh v. Sri C K Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Venkatesh v. Sri C K Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Yerramsetti Satya Kama Babu Vs Mrs. a Dakshayini

Smt. Kalavathi R., Vs Sri. Munirangaiah

Sri. Vineeth Kumar. M. G. Vs Smt. Girija. M

Sri H G Surendra Vs Sri C C Goutham

State Bank of India Vs Sri. Dayananda

Sri a M Nachappa Vs M K Paramashivaiah