WP/32644/2025 of SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA Vs KARUNAKARA K on 25 August 2026

ORDER

DATED 13.10.2025 IN O.S.NO.84/2020 ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1(2),7,14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING THE ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE WITNESSES AS MENTIONED IN THE ON DEMAND PRONOTE AS WELL AS ON DEMAND PRONOTE PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHICH ARE MARKED AS EXHIBITS P-1 AND P-2 PASSED BY LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHAMARAJANAGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

IN W.P. NO.32644/2025

BETWEEN:

SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA S/O LATE L. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.335, BANDIPALYA,

MYSURU-570 025. ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARUNAKARA .K S/O LATE RATHNARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MASAGAAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA PIN-571 313.

HC-KAR

2. SMT. J.N. VINODA W/O SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING NO.335, BANDIPALYA, GANAPATI ASHRAMA POST, MYSURU-570 025. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; V/O. DATED 03.11.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER

DATED 13.10.2025 IN O.S.NO.82/2020 ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1(2),7,14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING THE ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE WITNESSES AS MENTIONED IN THE ON DEMAND PRONOTE AS WELL AS ON DEMAND PRONOTE PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHICH ARE MARKED AS EXHIBITS P-1 AND P-2 PASSED BY LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner who is defendant No.1 in O.S.Nos.82/2020 and 84/2020 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar [Trial Court], has called in question the order dated 13.10.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] seeking issuance of

HC-KAR

summons to the witnesses to the on demand pro-notes marked as Exs.P1 and P2.

2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money. In both the suits, the plaintiff relied upon on demand pro-notes marked as Exs.P1 and P2. When the matter was listed for further evidence of DW1, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking issuance of summons to the witnesses whose signatures appeared on the said pro-notes and also sought a direction to the plaintiff to furnish their proper address.

3. The said application was objected inter alia contending that the petitioner had admitted the signature and execution of Exs.P1 and P2 and had also admitted the issuance of a reply notice relating to the repayment. In that context it was contended that the examination of witnesses are unnecessary and the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings.

4. The Trial Court on consideration of the material on record, particularly the execution of Exs.P1 and P2 not being disputed by the defendants rejected the applications by order dated 13.10.2025, holding that the proposed witnesses were not

HC-KAR

necessary for adjudication since their evidence, could at the highest establish the execution of pro-notes which fact had already been admitted.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the order particularly on the ground that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the purpose for which the witnesses were sought to be summoned and that their evidence was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff justified the order of the Trial Court and submits that DW1 has been fully cross-examined and has admitted the execution of Exs.P1 and P2 and has also admitted the issuance of the reply notice regarding extension of repayment period. It is submitted that the Trial Court considering the said aspect has rejected the application filed by the petitioner which warrants no interference.

7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of money and the initial burden of establishing the transaction rests upon him. The said aspect has been noticed by the Trial Court. However, the question before the Trial Court was not upon whom the burden of proof laid, but whether the

HC-KAR

defendants had shown sufficient cause for summoning the particular witnesses sought by them.

8. The material on record prima facie discloses that the defendants have admitted the execution (signatures) of Exs. P1 and P2. In the circumstances, the witnesses who are sought to be now summoned, being the persons who have signed the pro-notes, would essentially speak about the execution of the pro-notes. In the circumstances, the question of summoning the witnesses would not arise. The Trial Court has considered the pleadings, the evidence already recorded and the admissions made by the defendants and has found that no ambiguity or deficiency exists which necessitates examination of the proposed witnesses. The petitioner has not demonstrated anything before this Court, how the proposed witnesses could establish any other facts other than execution of Exs. P1 and P2 before the Court. The application therefore does not disclose sufficient cause warranting issuance of summons under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC. The order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be a non-speaking or an arbitrary order. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court is based on the evidence available on record. There is no perversity or illegality

HC-KAR

warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20