Allowed¶42

Rudresh v. Kempamma

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026WP/3246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (certiorari, GM-CPC) against dismissal of interlocutory application; Order XVI Rule 6 CPC (pleaded as Rule 3) application to summon Tahasildar, Nagamangala, for production of original documents; partition suit O.S. No. 279/2014, Nagamangala; dismissal of I.A. set aside and matter remitted to trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law; unopposed/consent remand; defendant No.2 as writ petitioner; plaintiff's production-of-documents application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 05.12.2024 on I.A. No. XVIII in O.S. No. 279/2014 set aside; trial Court directed to reconsider the application under Order XVI Rule 6 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 3) of the CPC in accordance with law. ¶42

Rudresh Vs Kempamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13060 WP No. 3246 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3246 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RUDRESH S/O EREGOWDA @ DODDAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O BETTADAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DIST-571432

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAIAH D.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1. KEMPAMMA

¶13

W/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally signed by R/O BALCIPADAMANTI KOPPALU DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT- 571432. COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

EREGOWDA @ DODDAMARIGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS R/O BETTADAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.

¶15

3. PUTTARAJU

¶16

S/O EREGOWDA @ DODDAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BETTADAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:13060 WP No. 3246 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432

¶21

SHIVAKUMAR

¶22

S/O EREGOWDA @ DODDAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶23

R/O BETTADAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.

¶24

5. SUDHA

¶25

W/O GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KABBINAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571432

¶26

&RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA IN OS NO. 279/2014 ORDERS ON IA NO. 18 DATED: 5.12.2024 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:13060 WP No. 3246 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, in O.S. No. 279/2014 on I.A. No. 18.

¶34

Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant No.2 filed an application 3 IA No.XVIII under Order XVI Rule 6 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 3) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon the Tahasildar, Nagamangala, to produce certain original documents. The said I.A. came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the IA was dismissed without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner/defendant No.2. Hence, sought to allow the writ petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:13060 WP No. 3246 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

¶40

submits that he has no objection to allow this writ petition and remitting the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the said I.A.

¶41

In view of the above, the following order:

¶42

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed on I.A. No. XVIII in O.S. No. 279/2014 is set aside.

¶44

(iii) The trial Court is directed to reconsider the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order XVI Rule 6 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 3) of the CPC, in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 69

Rudresh v. Kempamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudresh v. Kempamma

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

H.R.Manjesh Vs R.Sundramma

Sri K G Gopal Vs Smt M Vanitha Murthy

M/S Kirti Service Station Vs the Church of South India Trust Association (Csita)

Arun Ballakur Vs Mrs. K Nagarathna

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sri M S Shankar

Smt Nagarathnamma @ Rathnamma Vs Smt Tholasamma