Sri S Nanjundaiah Vs Sri Hanumanthaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri S Nanjundaiah Vs Sri Hanumanthaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations: the trial Court's impugned order is left undisturbed (being neither perverse nor illegal); the trial Court shall accept the certified copy of this Court's order in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 if the petitioner files it along with a memo, and shall consider the same at the time of passing the judgment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi rejecting I.A. Nos. 67 to 69 in O.S. No.51/2007 (to re-open the case, produce an additional document, and recall defendant No.6 to adduce further evidence) ought to be set aside in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no good ground or cogent reason to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court; the order is neither perverse nor illegal.

Ratio / Principle

No notice was issued to the respondents because no adverse order was passed against them.

Key takeaways

The certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 is a Court record which need not necessarily be marked and produced, and may be produced along with a memo.ratio¶66
The trial Court shall accept the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 in the event the petitioner files the same along with a memo.ratio¶67
The trial Court shall consider the said certified copy of the order in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 at the time of passing the judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka (Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur), decided 07.11.2025. The petitioner, defendant No.6 in O.S. No.51/2007 (Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi), challenged the trial Court's order dated 25.09.2025 rejecting his I.A. Nos. 67 to 69 — filed under Section 151 CPC (re-open the case), Order VII Rule 11A CPC (produce additional document) and Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC (recall defendant No.6/DW-2 to adduce further evidence) — his object being to produce and mark the certified copy of this Court's order dated 17.07.2025 in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 quashing Crime No.97/2018 registered against him pursuant to the plaintiffs' private complaint. Held: (i) the impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal and there is no good ground or cogent reason to set it aside; (ii) a certified copy of such a Court record need not necessarily be marked and produced and may be produced along with a memo; (iii) the trial Court shall accept the certified copy if filed with a memo and consider it at the time of passing the judgment. Petition disposed of with these observations; no notice was issued to the respondents as no adverse order was passed against them.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33169 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI S NANJUNDAIAH S/O. LATE. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

R/AT.VEERASAGARA EXTENSION MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU - 572 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O. LATE BAGURAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O.LATE KODAPPA

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

RANGASWAMAIAH S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

SIDDALINGAIAH

S/O. LATE KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARTE\R/O. HEBATHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

TUMAKURU TALUK 572 107

UMA W/O. LATE BAGURAIAH R/AT. ADALAPURA, HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107

A.B. RAKESH S/O. LATE BAGURAIAH

R/AT. ADALAPURA, HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI

TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107

A.B. RAMYA D/O. LATE BAGURAIAH

R-7 TO R-9 ARE R/AT. ADALAPURA

HALNURU POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107

RAMAIAH

S/O. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

LAKKAMMA W/O. BAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

GANGAIAH S/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

LAKSHMMA S/O. RAMAIAH

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R-10 TO R-13 ARE R/AT HABATHANA HALLI KASABA HOBLI

TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107

G.S. MUKTHAMBA

W/O. LATE S.M. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.31, KIRAN INDUSTRIES B.M. ROAD, BESIDE MARUTHI MILITARY HOTEL, GUBBI TOWN-572 216

G.S. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. LATE S.M. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R-14 & & 15 ARE R/AT NO.31 KIRAN INDUSTRIES, B.M. ROAD BESIDE MARUTHI MILITARY HOTEL GUBBI TOWN-572 216

S. NAGABHUSHANA S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD VEERASAGARA EXTENSIONS TUMAKURU CITY - 572 107

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WP IS FILED UDNER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025, PASSED ON IA NO.67 TO 69 FILED BY THE PETITIONER (DEFENDANT NO.6), FILED TO REOPEN THE CASE, FOR PERMISSION TO FILE LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND TO RECALL DEFENDANT NO.6 TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE, FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1(A) OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC, IN O.S. NO.51/2007, PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUBBI, VIDE ANNEXURE- M.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue

notice to the respondents as no adverse order is passed against the respondents.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6 praying to set aside the order dated 25.9.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.67 to 69 in O.S. No.51/2007 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi, whereby the trial Court rejected I.A. No.67 filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case; I.A. No.68 filed under Order VII Rule 11A of CPC to produce the additional document; and I.A. No.69 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the case of petitioner/defendant No.6 to adduce further evidence.

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the

averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications contends that pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the respondents/plaintiffs, the Police registered criminal case against petitioner/defendant No.6 and others in Crime No.97/2018. Questioning the said proceedings, petitioner/ defendant No.6 and others filed Criminal Petition No.4419/2018 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 17^th July 2025 quashed the proceedings in Crime No.97/2018. The petitioner intends to produce certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018 before the trial Court and mark it in evidence to counter the arguments of the plaintiff and to show that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is quashed by this Court. Therefore, petitioner filed I.A. Nos.67 to 69.

By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected I.A. Nos.67 to 69 on the ground that it may not be necessary at this stage to recall and re-open the case and permit the petitioner/defendant No.6 to adduce evidence only for the purpose of producing the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

No.4419/2018 (Annexure-F), whereby this Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No.97/2018 registered against the petitioner. The trial Court observed at paragraph-12 of the order as under:

"12. xxx xxx As the order sought to be produced can be placed before this Court at the time of arguments and does not necessitate recall of DW.2, the application deserve to be rejected."

I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, it is needless to mention that certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P No.4419/2018 is a Court record, which need not necessarily be marked and produced and may be produced alongwith a memo.

In the circumstances, without observing anything in the order of the trial Court to be negative, as the same is neither perverse or illegal, this Court further add that the trial Court shall accept certified of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4419/2018, in the event petitioner files the same

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45405 WP No. 33169 of 2025

HC-KAR

alongwith a memo. Further, the trial Court shall consider the

same at the time of passing the judgment.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the

above observations.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

GSS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25