IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.VENKATESH S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA @ BODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMASWAMYPALYA, HAMLET OF NAGANAYAKANA KOTE, ANUGONDA HALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMKARA.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. R.R.MANOHAR S/O. M.M.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SRI. R.R.ANAND S/O. M.M.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SRI. R.R.HARINDRA S/O. M.M.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS, 5. SRI. R.NAGARAJ S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 6. SRI. R.SRINIVASALU S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 7. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE R.BALARAJ, MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT RAMASWAMYPALYA, HAMLET OF NAGANAYAKANA KOTE, ANUGONDA HALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE-562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3, R1 & R2; V/O DTD: 23.07.2021, NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH;

SRI. NATARAJ BABA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R7)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2021 IN O.S.NO.398/1992 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOSKOTE A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW I.A.NOS.31 TO 33 IN O.S.NO.398/1992 AS PRAYED FOR.

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

,.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 06.07.2021 in O.S.No.398/1992, passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”]. By the Impugned Order, three applications, I.A.Nos.31 and 32 under Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.33 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section of 151 of CPC, filed by the appellant/plaintiff to permit him to recall P.W.1 have been dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in refusing to permit the marking of the certified copy of the registered Will. It is contended that section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires proof of execution through an attesting witness, but does not prohibit marking a certified copy of the Will through the beneficiary. Further, it was contended that since the original Will could not be traced, the petitioner obtained a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar. The refusal to mark the document would cause serious prejudice and deny the petitioner a fair opportunity to prove his title and establish his case.

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the registered Will is a vital and material document for adjudicating the petitioner’s claim of ownership. When the original is not traceable and steps have been taken to secure a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar, the Trial Court ought to have permitted its production and marking, leaving the question of proof and evidentiary value to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the suit in which these applications were filed, was originally filed in the year O.S.No.452/1990 and thereafter renumbered as O.S.No.398/1992. He further submits that the suit was at the stage of defendants’ evidence when these three applications were filed to reopen the case of the petitioner/plaintiff, to recall PW1 for further examination and to mark the certified copy of the Will dated 13.06.1998. 3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further submits that this is not the first time the petitioner/plaintiff has attempted to mark this document. Even previously, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed application under Order 7 Rule 17(2) read with Rule 85(1)(C) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice,1967, to mark the Will dated 13.06.1984. He submits that this application came to be rejected by th