Karnataka High Court
WP/27041/2026 of SRI. THIMMAIAH Vs RAJAMMA on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010596432026 NC: 2026:KHC:49274 WP No. 27041 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27041 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. THIMMAIAH, S/O LATE PATEL NEELEGOWDA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27041 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. THIMMAIAH,
S/O LATE PATEL NEELEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123
2.
GOVINDAIAH,
S/O LATE PATEL NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572123.
BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR
SPEICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
VIJAYA KUMAR T.,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF THOREBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVIKUMARA B. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
RAJAMMA
W/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
2.
KUMARA,
S/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572123
3.
CHIKKARAJU,
S/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
4.
MOHANA T. N
S/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HC-KAR
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572123
5.
GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572123
6.
RAMESHA,
S/O LATE NEELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SET ASIDE THE COMMON
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
DATED 08.07.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, IN O.S. NO.412/2017, INSOFAR AS IT DISMISSES THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR LEAVE TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 08.07.2026, whereby the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking recall of the witness and production of additional documents, has been dismissed.
3. It is submitted that the documents sought to be produced along with the applications were already on record, as photocopies of the said documents had been marked in evidence. It is further submitted that the additional documents are not new to the suit. It is contended that, owing to the delay in securing the certified copies from the competent authorities, the same could not be produced earlier and were sought to be produced after the closure of evidence. It is therefore submitted that an opportunity may be granted to produce the additional documents, as sought for in the application.
HC-KAR
4. Considered the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
5. The suit is of the year 2017. The affidavit accompanying the application states that the petitioners had recently obtained certain documents pertaining to the suit schedule property from the concerned department and that the said documents are essential for proving their case. The application is dated 20.01.2026 and has been filed after a lapse of nearly nine years.
6. Even if the case of the petitioners is accepted that the additional documents sought to be produced along with the application were already on record along with the plaint, no reasons are assigned as to why the petitioners were prevented from obtaining certified copies of the said documents and producing the same during the course of the trial. The reasons assigned in the application do not even remotely indicate when the application was made before the competent authorities or the date on which the said documents were issued.
HC-KAR
7. This Court finds no acceptable reason to entertain the application. The trial Court has rightly assigned reasons for rejecting the application, observing that the documents sought to be produced were available in the public domain and that no reasons were assigned to explain how the petitioner was prevented from securing certified copies of the said documents.
8. On consideration of the submissions and the reasons assigned by the trial Court, this Court finds that, prima facie, the application is bereft of any cogent grounds. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is justified, and no infirmity or error is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, no interference is called for.
9. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17