Karnataka High Court
WP/23826/2026 of MRS.SARASWATHI BAI Vs MRS GOPI RAO M on 20 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010521882026 NC: 2026:KHC:45237 WP No. 23826 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23826 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS.SARASWATHI BAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 23826 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS.SARASWATHI BAI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O.LATE.M.DEVA RAO,
2.
MR.D.NAVEEN PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O.LATE.M.DEVA RAO,
3.
MR.D.MARUTHI PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O.LATE.M.DEVA RAO,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.204,
2ND BLOCK, SOMANAHALLI POST,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT N RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MRS. GOPI RAO M,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
S/O.LATE.MUNISWAMY RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.1348/3, 2ND MAIN,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2ND CROSS, K.N.EXTENSION,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BENGALURU – 22.
2.
MRS.SUSHEELA BAI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O.LATE.R.VASUDEVA RAO,
RESIDING AT RAYARADODDI,
SOMANAHALLI POST,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 116.
3.
MRS.MYNA BAI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O.LATE.GAJENDRA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.201,
VAIBHAV ENCLAVE APARTMENT,
2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS ROAD,
BRUNDAVANNAGAR,
SBM COLONY,
MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU – 54.
SMT.MANJULA BAI,
IS NO MORE BUT HER L.R.'S
HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AS PARTIES,
4.
MRS.GAYATHRI BAI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O LATE BHIM RAO,
RESIDING AT BYLAHALLI,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
HC-KAR
5.
MRS.NIRMALA BAI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O.LATE.BHIM RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.20,
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU – 73.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2026
PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN REFUSING TO MARK THE
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.
1382/2007 AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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
The petitioners/defendants are before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2026 passed in OS.No.1382/2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Whereby, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners and refused to mark the documents in evidence.
2. In the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that the documents ought to be admitted in evidence by defendant No.1 are titled as Panchayath Vibhagapatra dated 15.09.1999, untitled document dated 30.07.2002 and titled as Panchayath Vibhaga Patra dated 10.03.1977 are sought to be marked. Then the Court proceeds to read the contents of the same. Then finally, the Court observes that the documents sought to be admitted in evidence are contrary to the pleadings of defendant No.1 and inadmissible in evidence and those documents cannot be marked.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court has failed to give any reasons for
HC-KAR
refusing the request of the defendants to mark these documents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Court has passed a reasoned order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order is bereft of reasons. Considering the fact that this is the suit of the year 2007 and also conscious of the fact that the Court has failed to give any reasons. This Court has passed in the following order.
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order impugned dated 18.07.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court for fresh consideration.
iii. Since, the suit of the year 2007, the Court shall make all its efforts to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year.
HC-KAR
iv. The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial. If, he fails to co-operate, then the Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. v. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23