Disposed

Regional Institute of Co-Operative Management v. National Institute for Rural Banking

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026WP/35695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant challenged a trial court order allowing the plaintiff to summon two official witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC despite delay. The High Court held the provision directory and Section 151 CPC confers discretion for just adjudication, found no illegality or perversity warranting Article 227 interference, and disposed of the petition leaving liberty to cross-examine.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without interfering with trial court order; petitioner free to cross-examine proposed witnesses and adduce defence evidence.

Regional Institute of Co-Operative Management Vs… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 35695 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT, RICM CAMPUS, NO.67, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M. KESHAVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RURAL BANKING, 2^ND FLOOR, RICM CAMPUS, NO.67, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI R. VENKATASWAMY.

¶15

REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT, RICM CAMPUS, NO.67, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27-09-2025 ON IA NO. 7/2025 IN O.S NO 2233/2020 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE COURT AT BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2233/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.7 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the application, I.A.No.7 filed by respondent No.1-plantiff against the petitionerdefendant No.1 and respondent No.2-defendant No.2 under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for issuance of summons to examine two witnesses was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶25

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

¶26

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.2-defendant No.2 for declaration, eviction and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable property. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the instant application, I.A.No.7

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

seeking summoning of two witnesses to examine them. The said applications having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under:

¶31

“ORDERS ON I.A. No.7

¶32

The present application is filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission of this court to summon and examine two witnesses, namely:

¶33

o The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to speak regarding the execution of Lease Deed dated 26.02.1981 made in favour of Chairman, Special Committee for Cooperative Training College, Bangalore.

¶34

o The Under Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Government of Karnataka, to depose with reference to the communication dated 27.03.2024 addressed to the defendants regarding the status of the suit schedule property.

¶35

2. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit of Sri R. Venkataswamy, its Former Director, in support of the I.A. The affidavit reiterates that the suit schedule property belongs to the State of Karnataka, the Lease Deed and subsequent Communication from the Department of Cooperation are relevant and unless the said Officials are

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

examined, serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in proving its case. On these grounds, prays to allow the I.A.

¶40

3. The defendants have filed detailed objections opposing the application, contending inter alia that:

¶41

The application is belated, since Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC mandates filing of list of witnesses within 15 days of framing of issues, which in the present case were framed on 11.08.2022.

¶42

o The plaintiff has already completed its evidence including cross-examination and the present application is an afterthought only to protract the proceedings.

¶43

o The plaintiff has not raised the issue of title of the defendants in the plaint or in the evidence and therefore, seeking to summon the Tahsildar and Under Secretary amounts to enlarging the scope of the suit.

¶44

The communication dated 27.03.2024 has already been placed on record and is self-explanatory; hence there is no need to examine the Under Secretary.

¶45

o As per settled law, a tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord and therefore, the plaintiff is barred from raising such pleas. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of I.A.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

¶50

5. Now, the points that would arise for my consideration are :-

¶51

1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds for summoning of the proposed witnesses at this stage of the trial?

¶52

2. What order?

¶53

6. My findings on the above points are as under:Point No.1: In the affirmative.

¶54

Point No 2: As per final order below for

¶55

the following

¶56

REASONS

¶57

7. Point No.1: - It is true that Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC requires the list of witnesses to be filed within 15 days of settlement of issues. In this case, the issues were framed on 11.08.2022 and the present I.A. is filed in September 2025, clearly beyond the prescribed time.

¶58

8. However, it is equally well settled that the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature and the court retains discretion under Section 151 of CPC to permit summoning of witnesses at a later stage if the same is essential for just decision of the case.

¶59

9. On perusal of the pleadings, it is noticed that the plaintiff has indeed questioned the ownership of the defendants and claimed that the property belongs to the

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

State of Karnataka. To establish such contention, the lease deed dated 26.02.1981 and the subsequent communication dated 27.03.2024 are material. Examination of their Authors, namely the Tahsildar and Under Secretary, is therefore relevant and goes to the root of the dispute.

¶64

10. The objection that the plaintiff cannot question the title of the landlord is correct as a broad legal principle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal & Anr. (Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.29500/2024 , decided on 11.09.2025) has held that in an eviction proceeding, the tenant cannot dispute the ownership of the landlord as strictly as in a declaratory title suit. However, in the present case, the claim of plaintiff is not a mere denial of title, but is based on an assertion that the property is owned by the State and the plaintiff is lawfully in occupation under public authority. The evidence sought therefore cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant.

¶65

11. As regards the objection of delay, though the plaintiff ought to have furnished its witness list earlier, the documents in question themselves came into existence after settlement of issues. Thus, strict application of the 15-day rule would cause prejudice and defeat the very object of justice

¶66

12. As regards the objection that the communication dated 27.03.2024 is already on record and self-explanatory, the fact remains that the Author's testimony would add

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

probative value and clarify its official status, which cannot be substituted by mere production of the document.

¶71

13. The apprehension of defendants that permitting such evidence would enlarge the scope of the suit can be addressed by allowing their cross-examination and reserving liberty to the defendants to rebut such evidence.

¶72

14. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the examination of proposed witnesses is necessary for just adjudication of the dispute and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the defendants if they are permitted to cross-examine such witnesses. On the contrary, refusing the application may result in failure of justice. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

¶73

15. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, this

¶74

court proceed to pass the following:-

¶75

ORDER

¶76

I.A. No.7 filed by the plaintiff under Order

¶77

XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-.”

¶78

As can be seen from the impugned order, the Trial

¶79

Court has taken into account the material on record including the contentions of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that the proposed evidence was necessary, relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the

¶80

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

parties. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that since the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses whom plaintiff sought for issuance of summons, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if respondent No.1 is permitted to adduce additional evidence by issuance of summons to the additional witnesses. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – ( 2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021

¶84

SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶85

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to crossexamine the proposed witnesses and also to adduce defence evidence in support of its defences. All rival contentions on all

¶86

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:2015 WP No. 35695 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶90