IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11196 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI CHIKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURIST K GANARDAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS SON AND PA HOLDER SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS K GANARDAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADV.)

Digitally AND:

signed by NANDINI M S Location: MR. GOVINDAPPA HIGH COUR T S/O LATE THIMMAPPA OF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS KARNATAKA K. GANARDAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIVEKANANDA N, ADV.)

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD 22.12.2021 IN I.A U/O 7 RULE 14 O.S.117/2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.12.2021 passed on an application filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC in O.S.No.117/2013 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein had filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the additional documents.

4. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendant by filing objections.

5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule

14 CPC. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that O.S.No.117/2013 is filed seeking the relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. It appears that the said suit was dismissed on 18.09.2018 and as against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2013, plaintiff had filed R.A.No.66/2018 which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court with permission to the plaintiff to lead further evidence, if any. Thereafter, the present application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff which is rejected by the Trial Court solely for the reason that the documents which are now sought to be produced by the plaintiff are not the documents which he had produced along with the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in R.A.No.66/2018.

7. In my considered view, the said approach of the Trial Court was not justified, for the simple reason that the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was not allowed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.66/2018, and on the other hand, taking into consideration that the documents produced along with the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are relevant documents for adjudication of the dispute, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal with liberty to the plaintiff to lead further evidence.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application merely for the reason that the documents which are now produced along with the application were not produced by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.66/2018 in which he had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Appellate Court has permitted the plaintiff to lead further evidence, and therefore, it is open to the plaintiff to produce any other material before the Trial Court in addition to the material which he had produced along with the said application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in R.A.No.66/2018. Any inconvenience caused to the other side because of the delay in pro