Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The High Court held the rejection impermissible and set it aside, granting liberty for appropriate steps.
Impugned order rejecting notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC set-aside; petitioner granted liberty to take appropriate steps.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 20857 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.N.KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKAKOLIGA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 122.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
W/O GUMMANNA
SINCE DEAD, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 ARE TREATED AS LRS.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022
HC-KAR
NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAKOLIGA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 122.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VASUNDARA.T.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1, AND ALSO FOR R5, 7, 9, 10, 12 AND 13 (V/O/D 06.03.24); V/O/D R3 TO 7 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R2; R9 AND R10 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R8; R11 HAS NO LR'S;
R3, R4, R6 AND R14 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.683/2015 ON AT I.A.NO.16 DATED 09.09.2022.
NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022
HC-KAR
because the documents have been marked in evidence subject
to objections raised by the plaintiffs, does not make it necessary for production of its original before the Court. Thus, the learned Trial Court had held that the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is rejected.
"8. Notice to produce documents.—Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No.12 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the Service of any notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, and of the time when it was served."
[Emphasis supplied]
4.1 A plain reading of the provision shows that the provision itself does not provide for any rejection. It merely sets out the procedure for issue of notice.
NC: 2026:KHC:566 WP No. 20857 of 2022
HC-KAR
Court in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Trial Court however has held that the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 is rejected.
Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is sustainable.
Whether Production of certified copies of release deeds satisfies the requirement for production of original documents.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri N.Krishnappa
Sri Anjanappa
Smt Jayamma
Sri Ramanjanappa
Sri Murthy
Smt Shailaja
Tara VParasta Ganju
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
