Dismissed¶30

Sri C Raghupathi v. Sri Hanaumanthappa

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026WP/1497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.; decided 05.03.2026; WP No. 1497 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Order XVI Rule 6 CPC; summons to produce bank statements; suit for specific performance of contract (O.S. No. 190/2015); plaintiff's own bank statements Exhibits P11–P18 sufficient to prove transfer to defendant No.1; Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira) order dated 13.09.2024 on I.A. No. 9 upheld; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff's own bank statements (Exhibits P11 to P18) were themselves sufficient to prove that the amount was transferred to defendant No.1 despite defendant No.1's denial; therefore summoning the bank statements of defendant No.1 was not necessary and the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application. ¶28

Sri C Raghupathi Vs Sri Hanaumanthappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13798 WP No. 1497 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C RAGHUPATHI S/O V CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 76, MARUTHI LAYOUT BEHIND THOMAS SCHOOL NELAMANGALA TOWN NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI HANAUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY

¶13

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI BASAVARAJU S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶15

SRI HANUMAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT PUTTAHANUMAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE MAJURE SHEEBI AGRAHARA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13798 WP No. 1497 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 13.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.9 IN OS NO.190/2015 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.09.2024 passed on I.A. No. 9 in O.S. No. 190/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

¶25

The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. During the course of evidence, the defendants denied the transaction of money through the bank. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the said application seeking to summon the bank details in respect of defendant No.1.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13798 WP No. 1497 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The plaintiff himself has produced his bank statements, which are marked as Exhibits P11 to P18, to show that the amount was transferred to the account of defendant No.1. These documents themselves are sufficient to prove that the amount was transferred to defendant No.1, even though defendant No.1 has denied the same. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application seeking summoning of the documents, i.e., the bank statements of defendant No.1, as the same is not necessary.

¶29