- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7025/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMACHANDRA H. SHETTY S/O LATE HARISH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 2-1-38 HARI NIVASA, MATADABETTU MOODANIDAMBOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. GAJANANA G. KOTIYAN W/O LATE SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MATADABETTU MOODANIDAMBOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101. 2. SRI. NITHESH G. KOTIYAN S/O LATE SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MATADABETTU MOODANIDAMBOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101. 3. SMT. NIKITA G. KOTIYAN D/O LATE SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MATADABETTU MOODANIDAMBOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 4. SRI. UDAYA POOJARI S/O LATE GURUVA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MATADABETTU MOODANIDAMBOORU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMAN, ADV., FOR R4 R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DTD. 29.02.2020 ON I.A. NO.22 AND 23 IN O.S. NO.53/2016 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI, VIDE ANNX-A & 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 29.02.2020 on I.A. No.22 and 23 in O.S. No.53/2016 on the file of learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, vide Annexure-A. (ii) Issue any other writ or direction to meet the ends of justice." 2. Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.53/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Udupi, (for short, 'the trial Court') for specific - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 performance of the contract dated 02.05.2012. The parties to the suit have adduced the evidence. However, the petitioner could not effectively cross-examine DW-1. It is submitted that the respondent has admitted to the execution of the agreement of sale deed dated 02.05.2012, however, he has denied the time stipulated in the said agreement and contended that as per the agreement, twelve (12) months time was stipulated; however, there is an alteration. It is submitted that the petitioner could not cross-examine DW-1 on these aspects, hence, an opportunity may be provided to confront some later discovered documents with DW-1 by permitting him for further cross-examination. It is submitted that the trial Court without assigning any reasons merely on the ground that other applications filed by the petitioner in I.A.Nos.16 to 19 were rejected and those orders have attained finality, proceeded to reject the present application also. He submits that one opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to cross-examine DW-1 in order to prove issue Nos.2 & 4 framed in the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.S.Venkataraman, learned counsel for respondent No.4-defendant No.2 vehemently opposed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 petition and submitted that the trial Court taking note of the conduct of petitioner, rejected the application. It is submitted that the parties have closed their evidence and matter was posted for arguments on 04.09.2019, thereafter, the petitioner has filed one or the other applications for dragging the proceedings which has been recorded by the trial Court in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order and in paragraph No.9 the trial Court has assigned reasons for rejection of the applications. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.53/2016 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract dated 02.05.2012. The respondents denied the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court framed the issues and thereafter, the parties have adduced the evidence. It is not in dispute that the petitioner cross-examined DW-1, who is defendant No.2 in the said suit. Thereafter, petitioner has filed applications in I.A.No.22 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and I.A.No.23 under Section 151 of CPC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 seeking to recall DW-1 for further cross-examination and to reopen the case. The said applications came to be rejected by the trial Court. The averments made in both the affidavits accompanying the said applications at paragraph No.2 indicates that the petitioner intends to elaborate the cross- examination of DW-1 to prove issue No.2 as he could not ask specific questions with regard to the alleged alteration in the agreement of sale dated 02.05.2012 with regard to the time stipulation. The specific assertion is also made in the affidavit that the petitioner has discovered certain documents recently and based on such documents, he intends to cross-examine DW-1. Though the petitioner has not placed on record the said claimed documents either in this petition or before the trial Court, however, keeping in mind that Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is an enabling provision and provides discretion. Hence, one more opportunity is required to be provided to the petitioner. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner, has without any justifiable reason, filed an applications belatedly. Hence, the said applications are required to be allowed on terms. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21060 W.P. No.7025/2020 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.02.2020 on I.A.Nos.22 and 23 in O.S. No.53/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, is hereby set aside. iii. I.A.Nos.22 and 23 in O.S. No.53/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, are allowed subject to petitioner paying the cost of Rs.5,000/- to DW-1. The petitioner is permitted to further cross-examine DW-1 on 20.06.2025. iv. It is made clear that on 20.06.2025, the petitioner shall cross-examine DW-1 without seeking any adjournment. DW-1 shall be present on the said date. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56