Sri. S.N. Bhaskar Reddy v. Smt. Suguna Sampath Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19618/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S.N. BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI. S.N. NARAYANA REDDY R/AT SURABHI NILAYA VINAYAKA NAGAR DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU -562 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S, ADV., FOR SRI. ASWATHAPPA D, ADV.,)

AND:

¶1SMT. SUGUNA SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR R/AT. NO.17, 17TH MAIN ROAD S R NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶2SRI. P.N. CHANDRA SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O P.V. NANJUNDA RAO R/AT NO.112, 5TH CROSS CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 008.

3. SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE KEMPAIAH

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:41908( W.P.(No.19618/2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010404062021( ( ( RESIDING,AT,NO.54/2, BASAPPA,ROAD,,SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560,027., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,H.C.,NATRAJ,,ADV.,,FOR,C/R1, ,,,,,,SRI.,M.S.,PRAKASH,,ADV.,,FOR,R2, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,R3,IS,SERVED), , , THIS, W.P., IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,COMMON, ORDER, DTD, 28.09.2021,, PASSED, BY, THE, XVIII, ADDL., CITY, CIVIL,AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE,,BENGALURU,,IN,REJECTING,THE, APPLICATION, FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF, I.E.,, I.A.NO.13,UNDER,ORDER,XVIII,RULE,17,R/W.,SEC.151,OF,CPC, AND,I.A.NO.14,UNDER,ORDER,7,RULE,14,R/W,SEC.151,OF,CPC, IN,O.S.NO.1854/2011,VIDE,ANNX-A,&,ETC., , , 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,

28.09.2021, passed, on, IA.Nos.13, and, 14, in, OS.No.1854/2011, by, the, XVIII, Additional, City, Civil, and, Sessions,Judge,,Bengaluru,(for,short,'the,trial,Court')., ,

¶2Heard,Sri.Suresh,S.,,learned,counsel,appearing, for,Sri.Aswathappa,D.,,learned,counsel,for,the,petitioner,, Sri.H.C.Natraj,, learned, counsel, for, respondent, No.1,,

Sri.M.S.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶3The petitioner filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated

21.07.2008 against the respondents herein and for other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed IA.No.13 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to recall PW1 and permit him to mark certain documents and IA.No.14 under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to produce documents. The said applications were opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the applications.

¶4A perusal of the applications and the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of both the applications indicate that the plaintiff has deposed that he had produced photocopies of the katha extracts, but he

could not produce the certified copies of the katha extracts. He further stated that he could not produce the bank statement of the period from 01.07.2008 to

31.07.2008, a copy of the reply notice sent by him to the notice dated 05.09.2018 issued by defendant No.1, and the original postal receipt and acknowledgment for having sent the reply notice to defendant No.1; and he came to know the same only during his cross-examination by the counsel for defendant No.1. It is contended that the non-production of the said documents was due to a bona fide mistake and that these documents are necessary for adjudication of the suit.

¶5It is to be noticed that the present applications were filed by the plaintiff after an elaborate cross-examination of PW1 had been completed, the defendants had adduced their evidence, and the defendants had also been cross-examined at length. The trial Court taking note of the said aspect has recorded reasons that the attempt

on the part of the plaintiff to adduce further evidence and produce the said documents was to fill the lacuna in the evidence and to overcome the admissions made during the course of the proceedings. A perusal of the affidavits does not indicate as to why the plaintiff could not produce the sought documents either along with the plaint or at the time of his evidence, as the date of the documents sought to be produced are of the year 2008 and 2018. In the absence of any such explanation or cause in the affidavits, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23