Disposed¶39

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna v. Sri B a Sirish

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2026WP/22046/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Article 227 writ (GM-CPC), W.P. No.22046/2021, decided 10.04.2026; challenge to rejection of I.A.No.20 (Section 151 CPC) in O.S.No.49/2011, Civil Judge and JMFC Koppa; prayer to re-issue commission warrant to Advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record further evidence of PW2 Dr.S.N.Rao, earlier examined in part, who refused to proceed as Ex.P4 was not original; precondition laid down that original Ex.P4 be secured from KMC Hospital, Manipal; conditional direction to trial Court to re-issue warrant upon securing original Ex.P4; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a conditional direction: if the petitioner-plaintiff secures the original of Ex.P4, the trial Court shall re-issue the commission warrant to Advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record further evidence of PW2.

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna Vs Sri B a Sirish — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court should interfere with the trial Court's rejection of I.A.No.20 seeking re-issue of the commission warrant to the Advocate Court Commissioner to record the further (part-completed) evidence of PW2 by providing the original Ex.P4, and whether re-issue can be directed conditional upon securing the original Ex.P4.

¶32

Court's answer

Unless the original of Ex.P4 is secured, the writ Court cannot order re-issue of the commission warrant to examine PW-2 Dr.S.N.Rao, as on the earlier occasion he clearly stated he would be able to answer the questions put by the Court Commissioner till perusing the original of Ex.P4.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner-plaintiff is able to secure the original of Ex.P4, the trial Court is directed to re-issue the commission warrant to the Advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record further evidence of PW2.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No.22046/2021 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), decided 10.04.2026 — The petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2011 (Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the trial Court's order dated 17.11.2021 rejecting his I.A.No.20 (filed under Section 151 of CPC) praying for re-issue of the commission warrant to Advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record the further, part-completed evidence of PW2 Dr.S.N.Rao. PW2, earlier examined in part under a similar allowed application, had declined to continue on the ground that Ex.P4 was not the original document, and the petitioner had filed an application for securing the original Ex.P4 from KMC Hospital, Manipal. Held: (i) unless the said document (original Ex.P4) is secured, the writ Court cannot order re-issue of the commission warrant to examine PW-2 Dr.S.N.Rao, he having stated he could answer the Commissioner's questions till perusing the original of Ex.P4; and (ii) if the petitioner-plaintiff secures the original of Ex.P4, the trial Court is directed to re-issue the commission warrant to record PW2's further evidence. Petition disposed of on these observations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20335 W.P. No.22046/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22046/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. B.A. RADAKRISHNA S/O LATE B.M. ANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O BELAGAADDE TAMADAVALLI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK POST HOSAKOPPA 577114 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. B.A. SIRISH S/O LATE B.M. ANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS DOOR NO.1777/35, JJ APARTMENTS FLAT NO.101, 23RD, CROSS MAGADI CHORD ROAD BEHIND ADYAR ANANDA BHAVAN VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION BANGALORE-560078.

¶14

SMT. SANDHYA NAGARAJ W/O K.B. NAGARAJ MAJOR IN AGE BANASHANKARI NILAYA DOOR NO.80

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:20335 W.P. No.22046/2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SHIVAPPANAIKA EXTENSION VINOBNAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577204.

¶19

SMT. VIDYA RAMESH W/O D.P. RAMESH MAJOR IN AGE SAGARA LAWYER BUILDING 36/1, RANGER BLOCK POST. SOMAVARAPET 571236 NORTH KODAGU.

¶20

SMT. NANDA RAJASHEKAR W/O K.M. RAJASHEKAR MAJOR IN AGE C/O K.M. RAJASHEKAR SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE POST TIPTUR 572201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. R. CHANDRAMMA, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:07.12.2021, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 STANDS WAIVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNER ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.20 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS.NO.49/2011 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:20335 W.P. No.22046/2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.20 in O.S.No.49/2011 by the Civil Judge and JMFC., Koppa (for short, 'the trial Court' )

¶31

2. Heard Sri.G.S.Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.Chandranna, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶32

3. The trial Court rejected the application - I.A.No.20 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking prayer to re-issue the commission warrant to the advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record further evidence of PW2 by providing original Ex.P4 signed by the witnessPW2 Dr.S.N.Rao. It is to be noticed that the trial Court has allowed the similar application on earlier occasion and PW2 Dr.S.N.Rao was examined in-part.

¶33

4. The material on record indicates that PW2 has declined to give further evidence on the ground that Ex.P4 is not the original document. It is to be noticed that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application for securing

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:20335 W.P. No.22046/2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Ex.P4 original from KMC Hospital, Manipal. It is also to be noticed that unless the said document is secured, this Court cannot order for re-issuing the commission warrant to examine PW-2 Dr.S.N.Rao, as on an earlier occasion he has clearly stated that he would be able to answer the questions put by the Court Commissioner till perusing the original of Ex.P4.

¶38

5. Therefore, it is made clear that if the petitionerplaintiff is able to secure the original of Ex.P4, then the trial Court is directed to re-issue commission warrant to the advocate Court Commissioner Sri Mahendra to record further evidence of PW2.

¶39

With the above observation, the petition is disposed

¶40

of .

¶41

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶43

BSR

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna v. Sri B a Sirish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna v. Sri B a Sirish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawaz Pasha S Vs Sheema Siddqa

T S Nagendraiah Vs Chikkacheluvegowda

Mrs Veena Goverdhan Vs Mr Mohan Jayaram

Anandu Manoj Vs State of Karnataka

Shri v Ganesh Vs State of Karnataka

Four Flavours LLP Vs Mr. Deepak Sindhe