Allowed¶51

P K Vinaydev v. Sri S Krishna

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/21568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 GM-CPC writ; certiorari against trial Court orders; Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC recall of witnesses DW1/DW2; Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 CPC production of documents; Section 114 CPC review dismissed; suit for cancellation of registered gift deed dated 23.06.2011; O.S.No.8377/2015; Janatha Co-operative Bank manager as DW2; loan documents suit schedule property; further cross examination without adjournment; expeditious disposal within 3 months; Karnataka High Court 2026; justice oriented approach.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders on IA Nos.19, 20 and 21 set aside; DW2 to produce loan documents pertaining to the suit schedule property; petitioner to complete further cross examination of DW2 and then DW1 without adjournments; trial Court to dispose of the suit preferably within 3 months; all rival contentions kept open.

P K Vinaydev Vs Sri S Krishna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 should succeed in quashing the orders dated 13.12.2024 (dismissing IA Nos.19 and 20) and 12.06.2025 (dismissing IA No.21) in O.S.No.8377/2015, so as to permit production of loan documents by DW2 and further cross examination of DW2 and DW1.

¶30

Court's answer

Having regard to the valuable proprietary and possessory rights over immovable property involved in the suit and to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach of setting aside the impugned orders and allowing/disposing of IA Nos.19, 20 and 21 by issuing directions.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

IA No.20 (Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 CPC) is allowed: DW2 is directed to produce the documents pertaining to the loan in relation to the suit schedule property on a date to be fixed by the trial Court.

¶56

Key takeaways

Immediately upon DW2 producing the said documents and appearing before the trial Court, the petitioner shall complete the further cross examination of DW2 on that day itself, without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances.ratio¶57
After completing the further cross examination of DW2, the petitioner shall complete the further cross examination of DW1 on a day fixed by the trial Court, again without any adjournment under any circumstances.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), oral order dated 07.01.2026 in WP No. 21568 of 2025 (GM-CPC), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8377/2015 (suit for cancellation of a registered gift deed dated 23.06.2011). The writ petition challenged orders of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City dated 13.12.2024 (dismissing IA No.19 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW1 and DW2, and IA No.20 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 CPC for production of documents by DW2, the Manager of Janatha Co-operative Bank) and dated 12.06.2025 (dismissing review application IA No.21 under Section 114 CPC). Observing that valuable proprietary and possessory rights over immovable property were involved, the Court set aside the impugned orders, allowed IA No.20 with a direction to DW2 to produce loan documents relating to the suit schedule property, and directed the petitioner to complete further cross examination of DW2 on the day of production and of DW1 thereafter, in each case without adjournment; the trial Court was told to dispose of the suit preferably within 3 months after that evidence. All rival contentions were kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21568 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

P. K. VINAYDEV, S/O. SRI S. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SANKALPA, NO.5, 1^ST CROSS, R.R.LAYOUT, OPP. SHIVASHAKTI HOSPITAL, KENGERI, BENGALURU – 560 056

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI S. KRISHNA S/O LATE GAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. M. B. SEETA, W/O SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. P. K. MOHAN DEV, S/O SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.27, 4^TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040

¶18

M/S HOTEL ADIGA ANANTHESHWARA NO.19, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 040 REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. VASUDEVA ADIGA

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. RADHAKRISHNA ADIGA PROPRIETOR OF HOTEL ADIGA ANANTHESHWARA NO.19, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 040

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. G. R. VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. V. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 ON IA NO.19 AND 20 AND ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 ON IA.NO.21 RESPECTIVELY IN O.S.NO.8377/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE, BANGALORE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶30

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated. 13.12.2024 on IA No.19 and 20 and Order dated: 12.06.2025 on IA.No.21 respectively in O.S.No.8377/2015 passed by the learned XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, vide Annexure-A and B respectively,

¶31

(ii) Issue any other Order or direction to meet the ends of justice.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 23.06.2011 and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the respondents-defendants, they examined defendant No.1 as DW1 and the manager of Janatha Co-operative Bank as DW2 and both DW1 and DW2 were cross examined by the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2019. Subsequently, the petitioner-plaintiff filed two applications viz., IA No. 19 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW 1 and DW 2 for further cross examination and IA No.20 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC for a direction to DW 2, the Manager of the Janatha Co-operative Bank to produce documents, certain documents.

¶37

The said applications having been opposed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 dismissing IA Nos.19 and 20. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed IA No. 21 under Section 114 CPC seeking review of the order passed on IA

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Nos.19 and 20. The said review application IA No. 21 also having been opposed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court proceeded to pass the subsequent impugned order dated 12.06.2025 dismissing IA No. 21. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the trial Court rejecting IA Nos.19, 20 and 21 filed by the petitioner, he is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be summoned from DW2, who is the Manager of Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank are extremely vital, relevant, necessary, crucial and material for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to put forth his contentions and as such, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court may be set aside and DW2 may be directed to produce documents pertaining to the loan in respect of the suit schedule property and tender himself for cross examination on a particular date on which day the petitioner would complete the further cross examination of DW2 without seeking any adjournment. It is also submitted that immediately after completion of the further cross examination of DW2 as stated supra, the petitioner would also complete the further cross

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

examination of DW1 on any date to be fixed by the trial Court without taking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever and the present petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders accordingly.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that valuable proprietary and possessory rights over immovable property are involved in the suit between the parties and in order to provide one more opportunity to the parties including the petitioner to substantiate his contentions in accordance with law, I deem it just and proper to adopt a justice oriented approach by setting aside the impugned orders and allow and dispose of IA Nos.19, 20 and 21 by issuing certain directions.

¶49

In the result, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ii) The impugned orders on IA Nos.19, 20 and 21 are hereby set aside.

¶56

iii) IA No. 20 filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 CPC is allowed by directing DW2 to produce the documents pertaining to the loan in relation to the suit schedule property on a date to be fixed by the trial Court.

¶57

iv) Immediately upon DW2 producing the said documents and appearing before the trial Court, the petitioner shall complete the further cross examination of DW2 on that day itself without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever.

¶58

v) Immediately after completion of further cross examination of DW2 as stated supra, the petitioner shall complete the further cross examination of DW1 also on a day to be fixed by the trial Court without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever.

¶59

vi) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months after completion of evidence of DW2 and DW1 as stated supra.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:927 WP No. 21568 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

¶64

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶65

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶66