IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3428 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI SURESHA HA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. ASHWATHAIAH, PARTNER, M/S. SANJEEVENI PROJECTS, NO.2/1, AV GOWDA GREENS, 1^ST CROSS, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, MARATH HALLI, BENGALURU-560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR RAFIQ SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL SHARIFF, NO.210, 2^ND FLOOR, CHARAN HABITAT, DEENA BANK COLONY, Di gitally signed by GANGANAGAR, CHANDANA BENGALURU-560 032 B M …RESPONDENT Location: (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN K., ADVOCATE)

High Court of THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE Karnataka CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.2588/2025 BY THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.2588/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 whereby the application I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit based on an alleged admission made by the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner – defendant, the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 instead of proceeding with the cross- examination, the petitioner – defendant filed the instant application seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of alleged admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by coming to the conclusion that the disputed questions of fact and contentious issues as regards possession, title, etc., that arise between the parties would necessarily have to be decided only after a full- fledged trial and not by way of application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court also came to the correct conclusion that there is no unambiguous, clear, definite, certain admission in the pleadings or evidence of the petitioner so as to give a closure to the suit without providing opportunity to both parties to prove their respective claims during the course of trial. In other words, the Trial Court has correctly and fairly considered and appreciated the entire material on record as regards categorical findings to the effect that the claim of the petitioner is beyond the scope, ambit and parameters of the provisions contained under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and consequently, since no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who would be permitted to put-forth all those contentions during the course of trial, the application filed by the petitioner cannot be accepted by holding as under:

“ORDER ON I.A. No VI FILED UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE The defendant has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a judgment dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the admissions allegedly made by him, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendant states that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking a direction from this Court to remove the single-brick compound wall constructed from north