Karnataka High Court
WP/26601/2026 of K.UMAPATHI Vs SMT. G.K. MANIYAMMA on 7 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010583612026 NC: 2026:KHC:48239 WP No. 26601 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 26601 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. K.UMAPATHI S/O LATE SRI. G. KRISHNAN AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26601 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
K.UMAPATHI
S/O LATE SRI. G. KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 305, VTH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, PRAKASHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. G.K. MANIYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. G. KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2.
SMT. K. PADMAVATHI,
D/O LATE SRI. G. KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3.
SRI. K. SHANMUGAN
S/O LATE SRI. G. KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE
R/AT NO. 1138/28, 6TH CROSS,
12TH MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 021.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R. GOPINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
QUASH
THE
COMMON
IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE A TO THIS WRIT
PETITION BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND PERMIT TO
LEAD EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.9195/2015 BY
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12-08-2026 PASSED ON BOTH
THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 CPC BY THE
LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
CCH-53.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
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.
ORAL ORDER
Sri. K.R. Gopinath, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalathnama for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This petition is filed by plaintiff No.1 in O.S. No.9195/2015, impugning the order dated 12.08.2026, wherein the application filed under Section 151 of CPC, seeking recall of the order dated 05.12.2022 and to permission to plaintiff No.1 to lead evidence, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as defendant No.2 was transposed as plaintiff No.2, the evidence of plaintiff No.2 was recorded. It is submitted that the trial Court, without granting an opportunity to plaintiff No.1 to lead
HC-KAR
evidence, posted the case for defendant's evidence. After completion of the defendant's evidence, an application was filed seeking permission to record the evidence of plaintiff No.1. However, the said application has been rejected without granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, when the case was posted for defendant's evidence, there was no impediment for the plaintiffs to seek an opportunity to lead their evidence. However, no such attempt was made since 2022. The application has been filed only in the year 2026, with an intention to delay the disposal of the suit.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The suit is one for partition. It appears that the trial Court had granted conditional permission to record the evidence on the same day; however, as plaintiff No.1 was not ready to lead evidence, the application came to be rejected. The recording of evidence of plaintiff No.1 would be necessary
HC-KAR
for comprehensive adjudication of partition suit. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to lead evidence, as the respondents would have an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff No.1.
7. In that view, the following:
O R D E R
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 12.08.2026 passed by LII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru is hereby
set aside.
(iii) I.As. at annexures-D and E filed under Section
151 of CPC to recall the order dated 05.12.2022
and permission to lead evidence of plaintiff No.1 is
allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-
to respondents.
(iv) The trial Court shall permit the recording of evidence of petitioner only on production of acknowledgment for payment of the costs.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16