The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3847/2020 (GM-CPC) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SRI. MAZAR KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS YARABNAGAR I BLOCK NEAR WATER TANK ROAD RAMANAGAR TOWN-591301. (BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S. ADV., FOR SRI. SUBBA SHASTRY N, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. JAMEELA BHANU W/O FARUQUE PASHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. RAHMANIYA NAGAR HUNASANLI ROAD OPP JAI BHARATH TENT RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. SAMEERA BHANU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O SYED IMTIYAZ RAHMANIYA NAGAR HUNASANLLI ROAD OPP JAI BHARATH TENT RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159. 3. SMT. PASHIYA SIRAN D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. AKIL PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR 5. SAKIL PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 6. SMT. SALMA BHANU D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 7. SMT. ASMA BANU D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 8. SMT. NAZIMA BANU D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFFIQU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 9. SRI. ASLMA PASHA S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 10. SRI SHABANU @ LALAN PASHA S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 11. SRI. HANEEF PASHA S/O LATE MEHARUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 12. SMT. ZAHEERA @ BAZIPASHA D/O LATE MEHRUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 12 ARE RESIDENT OF RAHMANIYA NAGAR HUNASANLLI ROAD OPP JAI BHARATH TENT RAMANAGAR TOWN-562 159. 13. SMT. SYEDUNISSA W/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT TIPPUNAGAR NEAR TIPPU MASJID RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR 14. SRI. NASSIR KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT YARABNAGAR I BLOCK NEAR WATER TANK ROAD RAMANAGARA TOWN-591 301. 15. SRI. APSHAR KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT TIPPUNAGAR NEAR TIPPU MASJID RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159. 16. SRI. JOHAR ALI KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT TIPPUNAGAR NEAR TIPPU MASJID RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159. 17. SRI AJAAR KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT YARABNAGAR I BLOCK NEAR WATER TANK ROAD RAMANAGAR TOWN-591301. 18. SMT. BIBI AYESHA D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. TIPPUNAGAR NEAR TIPPU MASJID RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159. 19. SRI. SAMEER KHAN S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 2ND BLOCK NEAR WATER TANK ROAD YARABNAGAR RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR 20. SMT. ASIMA KHANUM D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.471 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560045. 21. SMT. RESHMA KHANUM D/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.3, OLD POLICE LANE C STREET MAKHAN ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560051. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/DTD:22.02.2021 NOTICE TO R13 TO R21 IS D/W R1 TO R5 & R8 TO R12 ARE SERVED V/O DTD:25.4.2025 NOTICE TO R6 & R7 ARE D/W) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO DISPOSAL OF I.A.NO.26 TO 28 DATED 27.01.2020 IN O.S.NO.136/2007 FILED FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE, RECALLING THE PLAINTIFF WITNESS-PLAINTIFF NO.1(e) AND FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA AND AFTER PERUSING THE IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, E AND D SAME WHICH RESPECTIVELY. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 29.01.2020 TO THIS WRIT PETITION PASSED ON I.A.NO.26 TO 28 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.136/2007 FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER ALLOW THE I.A.NO.26 TO 28 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS FOR REOPENING, RECALL AND PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW & 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.26 to 28 filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.136/2007 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Ismail Khan had filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'A' Schedule property, for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to demolish the structure put up illegally by them in 'B' Schedule property and for possession of 'B' Schedule property from the respondents. The said suit was opposed by the respondents by filing written statement. It is submitted that the original plaintiff Ismail Khan died during the pendency of the said suit. The legal heirs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(j) who filed 3 applications namely I.A.Nos.26 to 28 for reopening the case, recalling the evidence of plaintiff No.1(e) and for production of additional documents to prove the averments made in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR plaint. It is further submitted that the Trial Court framed the issues and on 3 issues, the Trial Court casted the burden on the plaintiffs. To discharge the said burden, the plaintiffs are required to adduce the evidence as the original plaintiff died 5 years prior to the passing of the order. The plaintiffs are required to be permitted to adduce the evidence by producing the additional documents to prove that the original plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendants have encroached upon 'B' Schedule property. The documents, which they intend to produce are the relevant documents which were not produced by the original plaintiff. Hence, it has necessitated them to file these applications. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that more than 5 years prior to the passing of the order, PW-1 has been examined and nothing prevented the plaintiffs to produce the documents at that time. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that the suit is the oldest suit. It is also submitted that if an opportunity is provided to the plaintiffs, they would adduce oral evidence and also produce the documents to substantiate the case. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR 4. Though the notice on the respondents is served, there is no representation. 5. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the father of the petitioner namely Ismail Khan filed O.S.No.136/2007 seeking to pass a judgment and decree to declare the original plaintiff as the absolute owner of 'A' Schedule property, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the structure put up illegally by them in 'B' schedule property and further prayer for possession of 'B' Schedule property from the respondents. It is not in dispute that the original plaintiff died and thereafter the petitioner and the other legal heirs of the original plaintiff were brought on record who filed applications in IA Nos.26 to 28 for reopening the case, recalling the evidence of plaintiff No.1(e) and for production of additional documents. The averments made in the aforesaid applications indicate that the legal heirs of the original plaintiff were not aware of the pendency of the said suit. Later, they came to know that crucial documents were not produced by their father at the time of evidence and those documents are necessary to decide the lis between the parties. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR Though it is not in dispute that the applications were filed belatedly and there is no reason justifying the delay in producing the documents now sought to be produced along with applications, however, interest of justice would be met if an opportunity is provided to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence and to produce the documents relied in the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order sheet indicates that the aforesaid suit filed by the original plaintiff has been stayed by this Court. The defendants are yet to adduce evidence in the suit and for providing sufficient opportunity to the plaintiffs, these applications are required to be allowed on terms and allowing these applications would not cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, the applications are required to be allowed on terms. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.26 to 28 in O.S.No.136/2007 on the file of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20637 W.P. No.3847/2020 HC-KAR the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara, is set aside. (ii) The applications in I.A. Nos.26 to 28 are allowed. The legal heirs of the original plaintiff are permitted to adduce further evidence by producing the records sought to be produced along with IA Nos.26 to 28, subject to the plaintiffs paying cost of ₹5,000/- to the respondents. (iii) It is made clear that the plaintiffs shall not drag on the proceedings further. They shall appear before the Trial Court on 30.06.2025 and on the said date they shall file affidavit evidence and thereafter the Trial Court shall regulate the proceedings. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54