Karnataka High Court
Dr P C Ananda Lakshmi vs Smt. Sudha Rao on 5 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 36132 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 36181 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36350 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36486 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 36132/2025
BETWEEN:
DR P. C. ANANDA LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. ARYAKANDY RAMACHANDRAN,
PRESENTLY AT GURABI BATHA,
RIYADH 11422, KSA
Digitally DULY REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
signed by AVINASH RAMACHANDRAN,
CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BM S/O. DR. ANANDA LAKSHMI PC,
Location: R/AT. FLAT NO.1083, SOBHA SUNSCAPE,
High Court of MANAVARTHEKAVAL, TALAGHATTAPURA - SO,
Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 109
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUDHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AP RAO,
R/AT. NO.13, SANGEETHA APARTMENT,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R. SEVA NAYAK,
R/AT. NO.168, ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072
3. SRI. SATISH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PRASAD RAO,
R/AT. NO.9, ALIYAPPA LAYOUT,
KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 063
4. AKASHVANI VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1959
UNDER REGISTRATION NO.BSB.4885/79
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AKASHVANI BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
5. SAGAR G. KYATANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHAR S. KYATANAVAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-05, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
6. BHABANI OJHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
7. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. SUDARSANA SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
8. RANGANATH M. N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGAPRASAD
R/AT. FLAT NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
9. VAISHALI ADOOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO. 107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
10. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAMANANDA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
11. DEEPA KRISHNAPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. SHIVANANDA KUMAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
12. RAHUL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. HULLIKERE MALLE GOWDA RAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
13. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. MUKUNDA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
14. G. K. MUKUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. KENCHARAYAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
15. KAMAL JYOTHI KATTA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O. RAMIAH KATTA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
16. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-08, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
17. HARI KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. NAGARAJA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.301, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
18. SNEHALATHA ANNAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. BADRI SREENATH
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
19. BADRI SREENATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
20. SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O. ANNAIAH,
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
21. ANANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SAMUDRAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-01, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
22. GARIKIMUKKULA RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. RAJASHEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
23. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. DASARATH REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
24. SALLARAM HIMABINDU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
25. AJITH S. VERNEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVANAND P. VARNEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-04, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
26. AVINASH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
S/O. F. GOVINDARAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
27. SHANKAR K.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHANA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
28. VITTAL. H. S.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SREENIVASA IYENJAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
29. SASMITA MOHAPATRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O. MANAMOHAN MOHAPATRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
30. GURUPRASAD H.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
31. HARISH MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUPATHY MISHRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.302, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
32. SINDHU A B,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. SANTOSH,
R/AT FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
33. SANTOSH G K
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
34. B.C. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHANNA KRISHNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.306, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
35. SREEJA PRASHANTH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O. PRASHANT VATTANAKALAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-02, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
36. B.L. NARASIMHA,
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-03, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
37. VEA SEETHARAM NAIK
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-06, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
38. SHILPA SEBASTIAN ROMELES
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-07, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
39. AJAY CHAVAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.105, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
40. AMIT BURMAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.207, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
41. NITTA RAJKIRAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
42. K. ELIZABETH RANI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
43. KAVARTHAPU MOHANA LAKSHMI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
44. KANDULA DILIP CHANDRA
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 TO R44 ARE DISPENSED WITH
ON 05.01.2026)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28-10-2025 ON I.A. NO.18 IN O.S. NO.2914/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-42) AS PER
ANNEXURE - A
IN WP NO. 36181/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI S. SREENIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VERMA REDDY,
R/AT NO.11729, TROTTER POINTE CC,
CLARKS VILLE, MARYLAND,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 21029
DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SEETHI VIJAY KUMAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VERMA REDDY,
NOW R/AT DG-08, ALAYA APARTMENT,
HARLURU ROAD, HARLURU,
BENGALURU - 560 102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUDHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AP RAO,
R/AT. NO.13, SANGEETHA APARTMENT,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R. SEVA NAYAK,
R/AT. NO.168, ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072
3. SRI. SATISH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PRASAD RAO,
R/AT. NO.9, ALIYAPPA LAYOUT,
KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 063
4. AKASHVANI VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1959
UNDER REGISTRATION NO.BSB.4885/79
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AKASHVANI BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
5. SAGAR G. KYATANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHAR S. KYATANAVAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-05, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
6. BHABANI OJHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
7. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. SUDARSANA SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
8. RANGANATH M. N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGAPRASAD
R/AT. FLAT NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
9. VAISHALI ADOOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO. 107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
10. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAMANANDA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
11. DEEPA KRISHNAPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. SHIVANANDA KUMAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
12. RAHUL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. HULLIKERE MALLE GOWDA RAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
13. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. MUKUNDA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
14. G. K. MUKUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. KENCHARAYAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
15. KAMAL JYOTHI KATTA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O. RAMIAH KATTA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
16. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-08, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
17. HARI KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. NAGARAJA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.301, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
18. SNEHALATHA ANNAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. BADRI SREENATH
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
19. BADRI SREENATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
20. SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O. ANNAIAH,
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
21. ANANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SAMUDRAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-01, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
22. GARIKIMUKKULA RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. RAJASHEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
23. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. DASARATH REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
24. SALLARAM HIMABINDU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
25. AJITH S. VERNEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVANAND P. VARNEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-04, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
26. AVINASH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
S/O. F. GOVINDARAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
27. SHANKAR K.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHANA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
28. VITTAL. H. S.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SREENIVASA IYENJAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
29. SASMITA MOHAPATRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O. MANAMOHAN MOHAPATRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
30. GURUPRASAD H.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
31. HARISH MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUPATHY MISHRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.302, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
32. SINDHU A B,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. SANTOSH,
R/AT FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
33. SANTOSH G K
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
34. B.C. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHANNA KRISHNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.306, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
35. SREEJA PRASHANTH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O. PRASHANT VATTANAKALAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-02, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
36. B.L. NARASIMHA,
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-03, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
37. VEA SEETHARAM NAIK
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-06, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
38. SHILPA SEBASTIAN ROMELES
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-07, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
39. AJAY CHAVAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.105, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
40. AMIT BURMAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.207, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
41. NITTA RAJKIRAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
42. K. ELIZABETH RANI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
43. KAVARTHAPU MOHANA LAKSHMI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
44. KANDULA DILIP CHANDRA
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 TO R44 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.10.2025 ON IA NO. 17 IN O.S.NO. 2918/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-42)
AS PER ANNX-A.
IN WP NO. 36350/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. SREENIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VERMA REDDY,
R/AT NO.11729, TROTTER POINTE CC,
CLARKS VILLE, MARYLAND,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 21029
DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SEETHI VIJAY KUMAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VERMA REDDY,
NOW R/AT DG-08, ALAYA APARTMENT,
HARLURU ROAD, HARLURU,
BENGALURU - 560 102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUDHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AP RAO,
R/AT. NO.13, SANGEETHA APARTMENT,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R. SEVA NAYAK,
R/AT. NO.168, ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072
3. SRI. SATISH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PRASAD RAO,
R/AT. NO.9, ALIYAPPA LAYOUT,
KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 063
4. AKASHVANI VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1959
UNDER REGISTRATION NO.BSB.4885/79
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AKASHVANI BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
5. SAGAR G. KYATANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHAR S. KYATANAVAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-05, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
6. BHABANI OJHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
7. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. SUDARSANA SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
8. RANGANATH M. N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGAPRASAD
R/AT. FLAT NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
9. VAISHALI ADOOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO. 107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
10. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAMANANDA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
11. DEEPA KRISHNAPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. SHIVANANDA KUMAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
12. RAHUL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. HULLIKERE MALLE GOWDA RAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
13. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. MUKUNDA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
14. G. K. MUKUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. KENCHARAYAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
15. KAMAL JYOTHI KATTA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O. RAMIAH KATTA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
16. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-08, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
17. HARI KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. NAGARAJA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.301, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
18. SNEHALATHA ANNAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. BADRI SREENATH
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
19. BADRI SREENATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
20. SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O. ANNAIAH,
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
21. ANANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SAMUDRAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-01, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
22. GARIKIMUKKULA RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. RAJASHEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
23. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. DASARATH REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
24. SALLARAM HIMABINDU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
25. AJITH S. VERNEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVANAND P. VARNEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-04, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
26. AVINASH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
S/O. F. GOVINDARAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
27. SHANKAR K.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHANA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
28. VITTAL. H. S.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SREENIVASA IYENJAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
29. SASMITA MOHAPATRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O. MANAMOHAN MOHAPATRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
30. GURUPRASAD H.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
31. HARISH MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUPATHY MISHRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.302, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
32. SINDHU A B,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. SANTOSH,
R/AT FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
33. SANTOSH G K
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
34. B.C. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHANNA KRISHNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.306, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
35. SREEJA PRASHANTH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O. PRASHANT VATTANAKALAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-02, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
36. B.L. NARASIMHA,
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-03, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
37. VEA SEETHARAM NAIK
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-06, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
38. SHILPA SEBASTIAN ROMELES
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-07, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
39. AJAY CHAVAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.105, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
40. AMIT BURMAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.207, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
41. NITTA RAJKIRAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
42. K. ELIZABETH RANI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
43. KAVARTHAPU MOHANA LAKSHMI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
44. KANDULA DILIP CHANDRA
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 TO R44 ARE DISPENSED WITH
ON 05.01.2026)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 ON I.A.NO. 18 IN O.S.NO. 2918/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-42) AS PER ANNX-A.
IN WP NO. 36486/2025
BETWEEN:
DR. P. C. ANANDA LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. ARYAKANDY RAMACHANDRAN,
PRESENTLY AT GURABI BATHA,
RIYADH 11422, KSA
DULY REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
AVINASH RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. DR. ANANDA LAKSHMI PC,
R/AT. FLAT NO.1083, SOBHA SUNSCAPE,
MANAVARTHEKAVAL, TALAGHATTAPURA - SO,
BENGALURU - 560 109
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUDHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AP RAO,
R/AT. NO.13, SANGEETHA APARTMENT,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R. SEVA NAYAK,
R/AT. NO.168, ITI LAYOUT,
MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 072
3. SRI. SATISH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PRASAD RAO,
R/AT. NO.9, ALIYAPPA LAYOUT,
KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 063
4. AKASHVANI VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1959
UNDER REGISTRATION NO.BSB.4885/79
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AKASHVANI BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
5. SAGAR G. KYATANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. GANGADHAR S. KYATANAVAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-05, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
6. BHABANI OJHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
7. SISIR KUMAR SUTAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. SUDARSANA SUTAR
R/AT. FLAT NO.208, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
8. RANGANATH M. N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGAPRASAD
R/AT. FLAT NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
9. VAISHALI ADOOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO. 107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
10. SANATH KUMAR INNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAMANANDA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.107, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
11. DEEPA KRISHNAPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. SHIVANANDA KUMAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.106, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
12. RAHUL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. HULLIKERE MALLE GOWDA RAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
13. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. MUKUNDA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
14. G. K. MUKUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. KENCHARAYAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.308, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
15. KAMAL JYOTHI KATTA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O. RAMIAH KATTA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
16. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-08, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
17. HARI KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. NAGARAJA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.301, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
18. SNEHALATHA ANNAIAH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. BADRI SREENATH
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
19. BADRI SREENATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
20. SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O. ANNAIAH,
R/AT. FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
21. ANANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SAMUDRAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-01, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
22. GARIKIMUKKULA RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. RAJASHEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
23. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. DASARATH REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
24. SALLARAM HIMABINDU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. MARAM DAYAKAR REDDY,
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, SECOND FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
25. AJITH S. VERNEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVANAND P. VARNEKAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-04, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
26. AVINASH
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
S/O. F. GOVINDARAJU
R/AT. FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
27. SHANKAR K.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHANA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
28. VITTAL. H. S.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SREENIVASA IYENJAR,
R/AT. FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
29. SASMITA MOHAPATRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O. MANAMOHAN MOHAPATRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
30. GURUPRASAD H.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.203, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
31. HARISH MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUPATHY MISHRA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.302, THIRD FLOOR,
SRI. KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
32. SINDHU A B,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. SANTOSH,
R/AT FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
33. SANTOSH G K
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.206, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
34. B.C. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHANNA KRISHNA,
R/AT. FLAT NO.306, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
35. SREEJA PRASHANTH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O. PRASHANT VATTANAKALAM,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-02, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
36. B.L. NARASIMHA,
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-03, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
37. VEA SEETHARAM NAIK
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-06, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
38. SHILPA SEBASTIAN ROMELES
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.G-07, GROUND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
39. AJAY CHAVAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.105, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
40. AMIT BURMAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.207, 2ND FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
41. NITTA RAJKIRAN
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
42. K. ELIZABETH RANI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
43. KAVARTHAPU MOHANA LAKSHMI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
44. KANDULA DILIP CHANDRA
AGE MAJOR,
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,
R/AT. FLAT NO.307, 3RD FLOOR,
SRI KRISHNA SHRINE, AKASHVANI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 097
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 TO R44 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 ON IA NO. 17 IN OS NO. 2914/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-420 AS PER ANNX-A.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
W.P.Nos.36132/2025 and 36486/2025 arises out of O.S.No.2914/2017 while W.P.Nos.36181/2025 and 36350/2025 arise out of O.S.No.2918/2017. Both the suits having been filed by the common petitioner and the only contesting respondents in the present petitions and on the instant interlocutory applications is
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
respondent No.3-defendant No.3, Sri. Sathish Naidu. Hence, notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with.
2. Since common questions of facts and law arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are taken up together for consideration.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the sole petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suits in O.S.No.2914/2017 and O.S.No.2918/2017 for declaration, possession, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit is being contested by the defendants including respondent-defendant No.3 in both the suits, at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff filed application I.A.No.16 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC for permission to produce the following five documents, which are as under:
"1. Notarized copy of Letter dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to the Plaintiff together with copies of documents.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
2. Notarized copy of petition in (LRF) V.P.C.No.1/96-97 dated 02.08.1996 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, filed by A. Prahalad Rao, issued under R.T.I. Act.
3. Notarized copy of List of Documents dated 02.08.1996 filed by the Petitioner A. Prahalad Rao in case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the filed of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.
4. Notarized copy of sketch dated 05.06.1990 produced by the Petitioner in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the filed of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act.
5. Notarized copy of affidavit dated 18.06.1996 filed by the Respondent in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued under R.T.I. Act."
5. For the purpose of enabling the petitioner-plaintiff to mark the said documents in evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff has have also filed two more applications under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Evidence Act") to admit the aforesaid documents as secondary evidence and I.A.No.18 for reopening the case for further chief examination of PW.1. By the impugned common order, the Trial Court rejected all the three
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
applications i.e., I.A.Nos.16 to 18 filed by the petitioners in both the suits.
6. The petitioner challenged rejection of I.A.No.16 in W.P.No.33580/2025, which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025, which reads as under:
"i) This writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed on IA.No.16 in O.S.No.2918/2017 by XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bnegaluru, is hereby set-aside and consequently, IA.No.16/2025 is allowed;
iii) The plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents as sought. However, it is made clear that mere production of documents would not be proof or evidence of the documents."
7. The rejection of I.A.Nos.17 and 18 in both the aforesaid suits are the subject matter of the present petitions in as much as I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.2914/2017 is assailed in W.P.No.36132/2025, while rejection of I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.2914/2017 is assailed in W.P.No.36486/2025. So also, rejection of I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.2918/2017 is assailed in
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
W.P.No.36181/2025 and rejection of I.A.No.18 in
O.S.No.2918/2017 is assailed in W.P.No.36350/2025.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both the suits, on instructions submits that he has no objection for allowing I.A.Nos.17 and 18 in both the suits in part by permitting the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence in relation to the documents at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, subject to leaving open all contentions regarding proof, validity, admissibility, relevance and probative value to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Insofar as document No.4 is concerned, which is an alleged copy of sketch dated 05.06.1990 produced in Case No.V.P.C.No.1/96-97 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, is concerned, the said copy is purported to have been issued under Right to Information Act and the copy available with the Deputy Commissioner, who issued the copy under RTI Act was itself a Photostat copy / Xerox copy, which did not partake the nature of Secondary Evidence as contemplated under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. The aforesaid sketch which is a non- secondary evidence is not admissible in evidence and the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
impugned order in relation to the said sketch dated 05.06.1990 deserves to be confirmed in the present petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the suits submits that the only evidence in relation to the aforesaid sketch dated 05.06.1990 is the Photostat copy / Xerox copy and the same is available with the Deputy Commissioner and he has issued a copy of the same, would be a secondary evidence within the meaning of Section 63 and is admissible in law and the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the said document also.
10. By way of reply, learned counsel for respondent No.3- defendant No.3 would place reliance upon the following judgments in order to point out that so long as the original sketch itself was not either a primary evidence or secondary evidence, the question of treating the Xerox copy/Photostat copy as secondary evidence would not arise in the instant case:
(i) J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani - (2007) 5 SCC 730.
(ii) U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas - (2013) 2 SCC 114.
(iii) Vijay Vs. Union of India and others - (2023) 17 SCC 455.
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
12. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the documents sought to be produced as document No.4 is as under:
"A copy of the sketch dated 05.06.1990 produced in case No.V.P.C.No.11/96-97 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru, issued under the Right to Information Act."
13. In this context, it is pertinent to note that it is an undisputed fact as apparent from the material on record that the said Sketch was itself a photo stat copy / xerox copy of the sketch dated 05.06.1990 said to have been submitted by the predecessor of respondent No.3-defendant No.3 in the earlier proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The original of the said xerox copy of the sketch dated 05.06.1990 was not produced before the Deputy Commissioner and what was produced was only a Xerox copy, which was neither true copy of the sketch nor a certified copy of the original or compared with the original or the original itself.
14. As stated supra, so long as what was produced before the Deputy Commissioner was an alleged photo stat copy of a
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
sketch, the question of treating or considering the copy of the same obtained under RTI Act also as secondary evidence would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
15. In the case of J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani - (2007) 5 SCC 730, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"3. Learned Single Judge held that the documents which were sought to be received and marked as secondary evidence are photocopies. It was noted that it may be a fact that the originals of the documents are not available with the parties but at the same time the requirement of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Act") is that a document can be received as an evidence under the head of secondary evidence only when the copies made from or compared with the original are certified copies or such other documents as enumerated in the above section. The High Court found that the photocopies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received as secondary evidence. Since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Accordingly the civil revision was allowed.
7. Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.
8. Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section 63 is exhaustive as the section declares that secondary evidence "means and includes" and then follow the five kinds of secondary evidence.
9. The rule which is the most universal, namely, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection. That rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided (sic proved) by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. In Ashok
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube [(1975) 4 SCC 664] it was inter alia held as follows : (SCC pp. 666-67, para 7) "7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of Section 65 of Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the appellant filed applications on 4-7-1973, before Respondent 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case Respondent 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of Respondent 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate that the original document was in the possession of Respondent 1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The photostat copy appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court."
11. The appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs."
16. In the case of U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas - (2013) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"13. Before we dwell upon the tenability of the conclusions of desertion and mental cruelty, we think it condign to deal with the submission whether the photostat copy of the letter alleged to have been written by the wife to her father could have been admitted as secondary evidence. As the evidence on record would show, the said letter was summoned from the father who had disputed its existence. The learned Family Judge as well as the High Court has opined that when the person is in possession of the document but has not produced the same, it can be regarded as a proper foundation to lead secondary evidence.
14. In this context, we may usefully refer to the decision in Ashok Dulichand vs. Madhavalal Dube wherein it has been held that: (SCC p.666, para 7) "7. .... Xxxx"
Before it noted, in this backdrop, the High Court had recorded a conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the Photostat copy and this Court did not perceive any error in the said analysis."
17. Recently, in H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam [(2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209] , while dealing with Section 65 of the Evidence Act, this Court opined that though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations.
"12. ... In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original." (H. Siddiqui case [(2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209] , SCC pp. 244- 45, para 12)"
It has been further held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon.
18. In the case at hand, the learned Family Judge has really not discussed anything relating to foundational evidence. The High Court has only mentioned that when the letter was summoned and there was a denial, the secondary evidence is admissible. In our considered opinion, such a view is neither legally sound nor in consonance with the
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
pronouncements of this Court and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in dislodging the finding on that score."
17. In the case of Vijay Vs. Union of India - (2023) 17 SCC 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"32. Primary and secondary evidence stands explained by a Constitutional Bench of this Court in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya [Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270] (five-Judge Bench) as the former being evidence that the law requires to be given first, the latter being evidence that may be given in the absence of that original evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given. The terms "primary and secondary evidence" apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received.
33. Section 63 of the Evidence Act gives an exhaustive definition declaring that secondary evidence "means and includes" the five kinds of evidence mentioned therein. Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents under the circumstances therein mentioned. It provides for the circumstances in which secondary evidence can be used when the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It is imperative to adhere to the principles outlined in these sections, including the proper
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
documentation and authentication, to successfully produce secondary evidence in legal proceedings.
34.1. Law requires the best evidence to be given first, that is, primary evidence. [Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (five- Judge Bench), (2023) 4 SCC 731 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 352; J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani (two-Judge Bench), (2007) 5 SCC 730 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 9] 34.2. Section 63 of the Evidence Act provides a list of the kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. [J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 9] 34.3. If the original document is available, it has to be produced and proved in the manner prescribed for primary evidence. So long as the best evidence is within the possession or can be produced or can be reached, no inferior proof could be given. [J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 9] 34.4. A party must endeavour to adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. The exceptions are designed to provide relief when a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party. [M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu (two-Judge Bench), (2010) 9 SCC 712 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 907] 34.5. When the non-availability of a document is sufficiently and properly explained, then the secondary evidence can be
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168 WP No. 36132 of 2025 C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025 WP No. 36350 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER allowed. [Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 352] 34.6. Secondary evidence could be given when the party cannot produce the original document for any reason not arising from his default or neglect. [Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mohd. Syed Ali Matwali Mirza, 1935 SCC OnLine PC 56 :
(1935-36) 63 IA 85] 34.7. When the copies are produced in the absence of the original document, they become good secondary evidence.
Still, there must be foundational evidence that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (two-Judge Bench), (2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209] 34.8. Before producing secondary evidence of the contents of a document, the non-production of the original must be accounted for in a manner that can bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (two-Judge Bench), (2011) 4 SCC 240 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209] 34.9. Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. [Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 352] It has to be proved in accordance with the law. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (two-
Judge Bench), (2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209]
35. A reading of Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act displays the following:
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(a) Secondary evidence can be presented as a substitute when the original document/primary evidence is in the possession of the opposing party or held by a third party;
(b) Such a person refuses to produce the document even after due notice; and
(c) It must be ensured that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original."
18. In the instant case, undisputedly the alleged predecessor in title of respondent No.3-defendnat No.3 has produced only a Photostat / xerox copy of the alleged sketch and in the absence of either original or true copy or certified copy or any copy, which is said to have been compared with or made from the original, the said photostat copy of the sketch cannot be considered as a secondary evidence within the meaning of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. It follows therefrom that ever since the sketch produced before the Deputy Commissioner was itself not a secondary evidence, the RTI copy cannot also be consequently treated as secondary evidence before the Trial Court, so as to enable the petitioner to mark or admit the same as secondary evidence as contemplated under Section 63 of the Evidence Act.
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
While dealing with the said contentions, the Trial Court, in the impugned order held as under:
"REASONS
7. POINTS No.1 to 3:- Admittedly, the aforesaid, applications are filed at the stage of arguments of the defendants. The counsel for the plaintiff has advanced his arguments on the main suit and has concluded his arguments. It is now the case of the plaintiff that, since the identity of the written statement schedule property is in serious dispute, the proposed documents would enable the court to adjudicate the dispute and ascertain the identity of the written statement schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff may be permitted to produce the documents through secondary evidence.
8. I.A No.16/2025 is filed to produce the additional documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act to admit the documents as secondary evidence in the above case. As per averments in the affidavit annexed to the I.A No.16 and 17, it is categorically contended that, when the plaintiff made an application under RTI Act, before Deputy Commissioner for obtaining the certified copies of the proceedings in LRF No.1/96-97, the office of the Deputy Commissioner has issued copies of the proposed documents as there is no survey sketch/documents in the file of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of certified copies and therefore, the copies are issued under RTI Act. In the above
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
case the plaintiff is seeking to production of the documents which were allegedly produced by the predecessor in title of the defendant No.3 before Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff has not account of the existence of the original or certified copies of the documents. Under Section 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases, namely:-
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-
(i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or
(ii) of any person out of reach of or not subject to the process of the Court; or
(iii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 64 such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Adhiniyam, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
9. Thus Section 60 of the Act deals with the circumstances as to when secondary evidence may be produced. Here it is not the case of the plaintiff that he cannot produce the originals on account of circumstances mentioned under Section 60 of the Act. In fact it is the case of the plaintiff that the originals of the proposed documents are not available with the office of the Deputy Commissioner. In Avalappa V. Krishnappa ILR 1988 Karnataka 3347, it is held that Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 60 of the BSA) must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted and secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without the non production of the original being first accounted for, in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided in the section. Hence, without giving the account of the custody of documents now sought to be produced and laying foundation for the production of the xerox copies, the application now sought to be produced is not tenable. Merely because the documents are obtained under RTI the same cannot be treated as certified copies. Besides there is nothing on record to show that the photo copies of documents obtained under RTI are the accurate reproduction of the original and the same were compared with the original. Clause -2 of Section 58 of BSA Act has two requirements. Firstly, the copy should be prepared from the original by the mechanical
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
processes and secondly the process should be such which in themselves ensures the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies.
10. In the case of Surinder Kar Vs. Mehal Singh ONLINE 2013 P&H 1, wherein it is held that unless and until foundational facts leading to secondary evidence is led, the secondary evidence cannot be produced. Although it is well- settled law that no separate application producing secondary evidence is necessary, but necessary pleadings regarding existence of the secondary evidence must be stated either in the plaint or evidence affidavit of the plaintiff. In the above case none of these requirements are met. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff wherein it is held that if the factual foundation is laid by the party who seeks to produce secondary evidence then even if there is some discrepancy in the said document, such secondary evidence should be allowed to be produced as it would be the burden on the person who produce the such evidence to prove the contents of the document. In the above case admittedly the plaintiff has not given an any account of the existence of the original survey sketch which is now sought to be produced along with petition in VPC No.1/97 and affidavit filed by the respondent in the said case, hence in the absence of giving a true account of the existence of the original document the said judgments applicable to the facts of the case. Thus the application seeking production of documents and secondary evidence are devoid of merit.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
11. Additionally the question of re-opening the case by recalling the PW.1 for the purpose of production of the proposed documents and to lead secondary evidence would not arise as arguments are concluded and evidence is closed. Introducing new evidence at this point of time would only lead to de-nova trial which has been closed. Further it is noted that, the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner way back on 15.10.2024 itself, but however the instant application is made only on 24.10.2025. There is no plausible explanation given by the plaintiff for delay caused in filing the instant applications, nothing prevented the plaintiff to file an application of the present nature at an earlier point of time.
12. In the above case though the plaintiff has not invoked Order 18 Rule 17 CPC but the effect of the application filed under I.A.No. 18/2025 under Section 151 CPC is only to recall the witness of the plaintiff for further chief examination and permit him to produce the additional documents. In the case of Gayathri and Girish reported in AIR 2016 SC 3559 and Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (D) through LRs. And Others in Civil Appeal No. 1684/2016, the Apex Court has opined that Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
a witness who has already been examined . Order 18 rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Thus recall of PW1 by reopening the case is not permissible at this advanced stage of proceedings when the trial has been concluded.
13. Hence, in the above case the application seeking reopening of the case filed under I.A.NO. 18/2025 is devoid of merit. Accordingly point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
14. POINT NO. 4:- In view of my findings on Point No. 1, 1 proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER I.A.No.16/2025 filed by the plaintiff under Section under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected.
I.A No.17/2025 filed by the plaintiff under Order 63 of Indian Evidence Act is herby rejected.
I.A. No.18/2025 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected."
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court came to the correct
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168 WP No. 36132 of 2025 C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025 WP No. 36350 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER conclusion that the RTI copy of the alleged sketch was not a secondary evidence. Consequently, the question of permitting the petitioner to produce the said document in evidence would not arise and the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner-plaintiff to recall PW.1 and mark the said sketch as a secondary evidence in support of his contention and the impugned order insofar as it relates to rejection of request of the petitioner to mark and admit in evidence the RTI copy of the sketch dated 05.06.1990 cannot be found fault with and does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.
20. Insofar as the remaining documents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 has submitted no objection to mark the said documents as evidence, subject to leaving open all contentions regarding proof, validity, admissibility, relevance and probative value to be decided by the Trial Court, the impugned order in this regard deserves to be set aside and all the petitions deserve to be allowed-in-part by passing appropriate order in this regard.
21. In the result, I pass the following:
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168
WP No. 36132 of 2025
C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025
WP No. 36350 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
ORDER
(i) The petitions are allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned order rejecting I.A.Nos.17 and 18 in O.S.Nos.2914/2017 and 2918/2017 and insofar as it relates to rejecting the request of the petitioner to mark document Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and to recall PW.1 to mark the said documents in evidence, are hereby set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is permitted to mark/admit document Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 in evidence, subject to leaving open all contentions regarding proof, validity, admissibility, relevance and probative value, which shall be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the respondents to cross-examine PW.1 in relation to all the aforesaid documents.
(v) The impugned order insofar as it relates to rejection of request to mark the photostat copy of sketch dated
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:168 WP No. 36132 of 2025 C/W WP No. 36181 of 2025 WP No. 36350 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER 05.06.1990 as document No.4 and to examine PW.1 in relation to the aforesaid sketch is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30