Arun Ballakur Vs Mrs. K Nagarathna

MRS. K PADMA W/O. MR. K. ASHWATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE R/OF KONDUR LEPAKSHI MANDAL, HINDUPUR TALUK ANANTPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-515 331.

¶24

ACE FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.28, BALAJI COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 068.

¶25

MR. RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶26

MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O MR RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶27

MR. R RAVINDRAN S/O MR RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶28

MS. R SHOBANA D/O MR RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶29

R5 TO R8 ARE R/AT NO. H-36, 8TH CROSS, SHANTINIKETAN, NEW ASDC AT HUDCO, HOSUR, TAMILNADU.

¶30

MR. M.K. HARISH S/O. MR. M. KRISHNA REDDY

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶34

MS. M K SANDHYA D/O. MR. M. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R9 AND R10 ARE R/ AT NO. 306 24^TH CROSS, 27^TH MAIN, HSR SECTOR 11 BENGALURU-560 102

¶35

SRI. C. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. MR. CHINNATHAMBI MAJOR

¶36

SMT K BHANUMATHI W/O MR C KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶37

MR. K GOPINATH S/O MR C KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶38

K KAVITHA D/O MR C KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶39

R 11 TO R14 ARE R/AT 'KAVITHA,' NO.59A, 30 MAIN, 4TH 'A' CROSS BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶40

MR. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. MR. A. RAMA REDDY MAJOR

¶41

MS. K ASHA W/O. MR. SRINIVASA REDDY MAJOR

¶42

MR. A RAMA REDDY MAJOR

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

R15 TO R17 ARE R/ AT NO. 713 9TH MAIN, IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 034.

¶46

MR. K. PRASAD S/O. LATE MR. K.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶47

MS. K KAVITHA W/O MR K PRASAD MAJOR

¶48

MR. K SRINI S/O LATE MR K M KRISHNAPPA MAJOR

¶49

MR. K GOPI S/O LATE MR K M KRISHNAPPA MAJOR

¶50

MS. K USHA D/O LATE MR K M KRISHNAPPA MAJOR

¶51

R18 TO R22 ARE R/AT 'KRUSUN' NO.182, 9^TH MAIN, 7^TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶52

MR. A.C. NANJAPPA S/O. MR. A.M. CHITTIAPPA MAJOR

¶53

MR. A M CHITTAPPA R23 AND 24 ARE R/AT NO. 1120 11^TH CROSS, 23^RD MAIN, 1 SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, AGARA BENGALURU- 560 102.

¶54

MR. M. KRISHNA REDDY S/O. MR. M. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶55

5 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

R/AT NO.306, 24TH CROSS 27^TH MAIN, HSR SECTOR II BENGALURU 560 102.

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI. K V SATISH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26TH NOVEMBER 2025 (26.11.2025) IN O.S. NO. 9952/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGECCH 66, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B) PASSED ON I.A. NO. 8 FILED UNDER SECTION 65(A) AND SECTION 63(C) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND ALLOW I.A. NO. 8 FILED UNDER SECTION 65(A) AND SECTION 63(C) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN O.S. NO. 9952/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON BLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH 66, AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶62

IN WP NO. 1315/2026

¶63

BETWEEN:

¶64

MR. ARUN BALLAKUR S/O. LATE MR. B.L.N RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.295, 19TH MAIN 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095.

¶65

MS. MADHAVI BALLAKUR W/O. MR. ARUN BALLAKUR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.295, 19TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 REP. BY POA HOLDER-MR. ARUN BALLAKU

¶66

...PETITIONERS

¶67

(BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA.,ADVOCATE)

¶68

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

AND:

¶71

MR. M. KRISHNA REDDY S/O. MR. M. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.306, 24TH CROSS 27TH MAIN, HSR SECTOR II BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶72

ACE FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.28, BALAJI COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 068

¶73

MR. RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶74

MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. MR. RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶75

MR. R. RAVINDRAN S/O. MR. RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶76

MS. R. SHOBANA D/O. MR. RANGASWAMY MAJOR

¶77

R3 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO. H-36 8TH CROSS, SHANTINIKETAN NEW ASDC AT HUDCO, HOSUR TAMILNADU

¶78

MR. M.K. HARISH S/O. MR. M. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶79

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

MS. M.K. SANDHYA

¶82

D/O. M. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.306

¶83

24^TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, HSR SECTOR II BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶84

SRI. C. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. MR. CHINNATHAMBI MAJOR

¶85

SMT. K. BHANUMATHI W/O. MR. C. KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶86

MR. K. GOPINATH S/O. MR. C. KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶87

K. KAVITHA

¶88

D/O. MR. C. KRISHNA MURTHY MAJOR

¶89

R9 TO R12 ARE R/AT KAVITHA, NO.59A 30 MAIN, 4TH A CROSS BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶90

MR. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. MR. A. RAMA REDDY MAJOR

¶91

MS. K. ASHA W/O. MR. SRINIVASA REDDY MAJOR

¶92

MR. A. RAMA REDDY MAJOR R13 TO 15 ARE R/AT NO. 713 9TH MAIN, IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 034.

¶93

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

MR. K. PRASAD S/O. LATE MR. K.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶96

MR. K. SRINI S/O. LATE MR. K.M. KRISHNAPPA

¶97

MR. K. GOPI S/O. LATE MR. K.M. KRISHNAPPA

¶98

MS. K. USHA D/O. LATE MR. K.M. KRISHNAPPA MAJOR

¶99

MS. K. KAVITHA W/O. MR. K. PRASAD

¶100

MAJOR

¶101

R16 TO R16 R/AT 'KRUSUN' NO.182 9TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶102

MR. A.C. NANJAPPA S/O. MR. A.M. CHITTIAPPA MAJOR

¶103

MR. A.M. CHITTAPPA

¶104

R21 TO 22 ARE R/AT NO. 1120

¶105

11^TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN, 1 SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, AGARA, BENGALURU- 560 102.

¶106

...RESPONDENTS

¶107

(BY SRI.K V SATISH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶108

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26TH NOVEMBER 2025 (26.11.2025) IN O.S. NO. 9950/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGECCH 66, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE -B) PASSED ON I.A. NO.

¶109

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

12 FILED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND I.A. NOS. 13 AND 14 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN THE SUIT, AND ALLOW I.A. NO. 12 FILED UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND I.A. NOS. 13 AND 14 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN O.S. NO. 9950/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE- CCH 66, AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶112

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

¶113

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶114

ORAL ORDER

¶115

IN W.P.NO.1526/2026

¶116

In this writ petition, the petitioners-defendant Nos.2

¶117

and 3 have called in question the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) on I.A.No.VIII filed under Sections 65(a) and 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.9952/2015 vide Annexure-B, seeking permission to produce the certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 29.12.2002

¶118

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

extracting the same from Ex.D19 in O.S.No.9950/2015.

¶121

The Trial Court by impugned order dated 26.11.2025 rejected the said I.A.No.VIII. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners–defendant Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court.

¶122

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners– defendant Nos.2 and 3 submits that the only reason for rejection of I.A.No.VIII was that the author of Ex.D19 i.e. the Truth Lab Report, in respect of the signatures and the handwriting on the alleged photocopy of the MOU dated 29.12.2002, had not been examined in the suit and that the entire evidence of both the sides had been concluded. He further submitted that, subsequent to passing of the said impugned order, the author of Ex.D19 has now been examined.

¶123

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2plaintiff No.2 contends that I.A.No.VIII filed by the petitioners itself is not maintainable, as there is no pleading with respect to the MOU. In the absence of such

¶124

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

pleading, the question of seeking a direction for production of the document would not arise. He further submitted that, in the written statement filed by the defendants, they have categorically denied the MOU. Therefore, the question of seeking direction for production of the original/certified copy of the MOU would not arise.

¶127

I have gone through the impugned order dated 26.11.2025. There is no consideration therein in respect of the issues raised by the plaintiffs i.e. respondents herein. The only reason assigned for rejection of the application is that the author of Ex.D19 had not been examined and that the evidence is concluded. Now that the author of Ex.D19 is said to have been examined, the matter therefore, requires reconsideration, taking into account all the contentions raised by both the parties.

¶128

In view of the above, following order is passed:

¶129

a) The writ petition is allowed .

¶130

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

b) The order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Trial

¶133

Court on I.A.No.VIII filed under Sections 65(a) and 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC is set aside.

¶134

c) The parties are directed to advance arguments on I.A.No.VIII on 07.03.2026.

¶135

d) The Trial Court is directed to hear the arguments of the parties on the said application on 07.03.2026 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶136

IN W.P.NO.1315/2026

¶137

In this writ petition, the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 and 3 have called in question the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.9950/2015 on I.A.No.XII filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.Nos.XIII and XIV filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce

¶138

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

the certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) being certified copy of Ex.D19-Report of Truth Lab marked in O.S.No.9950/2015, and further to recall the order dated 05.08.2025 for closing the defendants’ evidence, and to reopen the evidence of defendant Nos.2 and 3, respectively. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 26.11.2025 rejected I.A.Nos.XII to XIV. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners–defendant Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court.

¶141

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners– defendant Nos.2 and 3 submits that the only reason for rejection of I.A.Nos.XII to XIV was that the author of Ex.D19 had not been examined in respect of the report/opinion of Truth Lab in respect of the signatures and the handwriting on the alleged photocopy of the MOU dated 29.12.2002 and that the entire evidence of both the sides had been concluded. He further submitted that, subsequent to passing of the impugned order, the author of Ex.D19 has now been examined.

¶142

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:12943 WP No. 1526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 1315 of 2026

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2plaintiff No.2 contends that I.A.Nos.XII to XIV filed by the petitioners itself are not maintainable, as there is no pleading with respect to the MOU. In the absence of such pleading, the question of seeking a direction for production of the document would not arise. He further submitted that, in the written statement filed by the defendants, they have categorically denied the MOU. Therefore, the question of seeking direction for production of the original or certified copy of MOU would not arise.

¶145

I have gone through the impugned order dated 26.11.2025. There is no consideration therein in respect of the issues raised by the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein. The only reason assigned for rejection of the application is that the author of Ex.D19 had not been examined and that the evidence had been concluded. Now, that the author of Ex.D19 is said to have been examined, the matter, therefore, requires reconsideration, taking into account all the contentions raised by both parties.

¶146