High Court set aside an impugned order rejecting an application for issue of witness summons because it was bereft of reasons. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to record specific reasons within a week.
Impugned order dated 28.11.2025 set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court to pass appropriate orders with reasons within one week.
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:29676 WP No. 38674 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 38674 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BIBI SABIRA WIFE OF SRI. A. R. DAMUDI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 401, MILLICENT APARTMENT, LEONARD LANE, NEAR JOHNSON MARKET, BENGALURU-560 025.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RISHI SANJAY CHUGH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BHAVANA, 3RD CROSS NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE MALLASANDRA, DASANAHALLI 560 057.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI. R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 R1, R2 & R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1564/2022 PENDING ON FILE OF LEARNED LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE ABOVE PETITION AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID IA SEEKING TO SUMMON EXTERNAL WITNESSES DETAILED THEREIN AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2026:KHC:29676 WP No. 38674 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
“Wherefore, in view of the aforesaid grounds, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
3. The Trial Court by order impugned has rejected the I.A.No.XXI/2025 filed under Order XVI Rule 1(2) read with
NC: 2026:KHC:29676 WP No. 38674 of 2025
HC-KAR
Section 151 of CPC to issue witness summons to the witnesses, i.e., Branch Manager, Union Bank of India and also the Town Planning Member, Bangalore Development Authority. The Trial Court, while dismissing the application observed that the Counsel for the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.XXI/2025 to issue witness summons without cross-examining the DW.3. No grounds made out for allowing the I.A.No.XXI/2025. Hence, I.A.No.XXI/2025 filed by the Counsel for the plaintiff was rejected. Counsel for the plaintiff prays time for crossexamination of DW.3. Call on for cross-examination of DW.3, finally as last chance by 29.11.2025.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the Trial Court had failed to consider the application filed by the plaintiff seeking to issue summons to the said witnesses as the examination of those witnesses are very much crucial for the case of the plaintiff. The order that is passed by the Trial Court is bereft of reasons and the same requires to be set aside and an opportunity shall be given to the plaintiff to summon those witnesses to cross-examine them to elicit the true facts which are very much essential for the plaintiff to prove her case.
HC-KAR
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar,
appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the suit is of the year 2022 and an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A.Nos.5751/2023 c/w 5728/2023, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of 8 months from thereon. The petitioner herein has filed multiple number of I.As., and keep on dragging on the matter. In fact, earlier the petitioner filed an application to implead the Bank Manager in the suit. It is submitted that the said application came to be dismissed and now the plaintiff has come up with the present application. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order sheet and submits as to how the matter is dragged. It is further submitted that considering all these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, perused the material on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:29676 WP No. 38674 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. What is the conduct of the party and how the matter has been dragged before the Trial Court, nothing has been discussed in the impugned order. When an I.A. is filed seeking to summon witnesses, by way of a cryptic order saying that the Trial Court did not find any grounds to allow the I.A., such an order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. When an order passed by the Court is an order appealable/revisable to the Superior Court, the Trial Court has to record the reasons for the same, so that the Court will understand what is the reason or on what grounds the Court has refused to grant a relief to the party and any submissions made by any of the parties, cannot supplant the view of the Court.
8. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that the plaintiff is repeatedly filing the applications and dragging on the matter and the same should have been discussed by the Trial Court in a cryptic manner. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the application in this manner. This Court has asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether any application is filed to re-open the evidence of plaintiff. It is submitted that learned Counsel has no information. However, the order sheet
HC-KAR
does not disclose that any such application is filed. When an
order is passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit, it is the duty of all the parties that they have to cooperate with the trial. The suit is of the year 2022 and it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that when the direction was issued to dispose of the suit within 8 months, but even till now, the matter is still pending.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the above discussion, this Court is setting aside the impugned order as the same is bereft of reasons. However, it is made clear that the parties shall cooperate with the trial and whenever the Trial Court proceeds to pass any order, the Trial Court shall pass an order giving specific reasons for such refusal or for allowing the same. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
NC: 2026:KHC:29676 WP No. 38674 of 2025
HC-KAR
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
DL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an impugned order dismissing an application to summon witnesses is sustainable when it is devoid of recorded reasons.
Whether the Trial Court fulfilled its duty to record reasons for rejecting an application filed under CPC provisions.
Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for recording reasons.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Bibi Sabira
H.C. Basavaraju
Sri M.R. Udayaprakash
Smt. C.R. Kavitha
NTI Housing Co-Operative Society Limited
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
