Plaintiffs in a partition suit sought recall of PW-1 and production of documents via I.A.Nos.11 to 14 after earlier similar applications were rejected and attained finality. The High Court found the applications to be an abuse of process, held the Trial Court's rejection was not perverse, and dismissed the writ petition.
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:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22600/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JOSHI DATTATRAYA MADHAVA RAO, ADV.,)
AND:
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.35/1 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS RANGANATHA COLONY GORIPALYA BANGALORE-560018.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADV., FOR C/R7 SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-K DTD 01.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-40) AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.8066/2013 ON IA NO.11 TO 14 & ETC.
NC: 2026:KHC:20505 W.P. No.22600/2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
01.12.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.11 to 14 in O.S.No.8066/2013 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-40) (for short 'the Trial Court').
HC-KAR
were rejected by the Court earlier. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed I.A.No.4 on 15.12.2016 and along with the said application, certain documents were enclosed which can be noticed from the order dated 15.12.2016. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 15.04.2021 on the ground that the application is not accompanied by the document. This compelled the petitioners to file the present applications which are necessary to adjudicate the suit as the petitioners are required to establish the relationship as well as the right over the property. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
unable to put up the construction as the petitioners-
HC-KAR
plaintiffs have obtained the injunction order in the said suit. It is submitted that the filing of the present applications by the petitioners is at the fag end of the proceedings that too at the stage of arguments is an abuse of process of Court. It is further submitted that the
Trial Court has clearly recorded the reasons that the petitioners are in the habit of filing frivolous applications as similar applications were rejected on earlier occasions and those orders have attained finality. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petition.
counsel for the petitioners, learned counsels for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
their half share in the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written
HC-KAR
statement. It is to be noticed that the petitioners-plaintiffs have examined PW-1 and thereafter, filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of the documents as is evident from Annexure D to the writ petition. It is to be noticed that the said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 15.04.2021. The said order has attained finality. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have also filed applications in I.A.Nos.7 to 9 under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing the xerox copies of the nomination form, re-open the case and seeking permission to lead further examination-in-chief of PW-1. Those applications were duly considered by Trial Court and rejected vide order dated 17.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed applications in I.A.Nos.11 to 14 seeking similar relief to recall PW-1 and seeking permission to produce the additional documents. The Trial
HC-KAR
Court, noticing the earlier orders has rightly come to the conclusion that filing of I.A.Nos.11 to 14 is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, rejected the said applications. I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to adduce the evidence and in the earlier orders passed by the Trial Court, similar applications were rejected which have attained finality. In view of the same, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with order passed by the Trial Court.
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting I.A.Nos.11 to 14 seeking recall of PW-1 and production of additional documents after similar applications were earlier rejected.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nawaz Pasha .S
Tabasum Taj
Sheema Siddqa
Asma Siddqa
S. Imran
S. Sageer
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
