- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3286 WP No. 22863 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 22863 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE GUNDAPPA, W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A JANGAMARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561207. REPRESENTED BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A JANGAMARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561 207. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561 207. 2. THE P D O/SECRETARY GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561 207. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3286 WP No. 22863 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC @ CHIKKABALLAPURA IN O.S.NO.33/2013. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPURA IN O.S.NO.33/2013 [ANNEXURE-J]; ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS FILED U/O 16 RULE 1 AND 2, 18 RULE 17, AND U/S 151 OF C.P.C PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANEXURE-E F, G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in applications filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.33/2013 dated 04.04.2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, to permit them to lead further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and also to examine their witnesses, whereby the trial Court had dismissed the applications, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. It is the case that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit wherein he has stated that on previous date of hearing the case was posted for further evidence, but the witnesses who were intending to give evidence on his side were suffering from ill health and for that reason he could not file witness list to examine them and for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3286 WP No. 22863 of 2019 that reason further evidence was taken as nil and the case was posted for arguments and those witnesses are very much crucial to prove his case and also with regard to the execution of document dated 25.02.1991. Hence, the plaintiff has come up with the present applications. 3. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the applications and while dismissing the applications, it is observed that the suit is one for permanent injunction wherein the power of attorney holder was examined as PW-2 and through him Exs.P.1 to 13 has already been marked and earlier through PW-2 Exs.P.1 to 5 was marked and he was cross examined. Later, further documents were filed which were marked as Exs.P.6 and 7 and again his evidence was recalled on 31.01.2019 and Exs.P.8 to 13 were marked and after that he was fully cross examined and the case was posted for further evidence on behalf of plaintiff. But, however, in spite of marking of the documents, the plaintiff has not filed witness list and for that reason further evidence was taken as nil and the case was posted for defense evidence. The plaintiffs have filed the applications and reason stated in the affidavit was that witness proposed to be examined by the plaintiff was suffering - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3286 WP No. 22863 of 2019 from ill health. The trial Court had observed that the ill health of witnesses was no impediment for the plaintiff to file witness list and the reason assigned by the plaintiff for not filing the witness list appears to be imprudent and accordingly dismissed the applications by imposing cost of Rs.300/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff could not file the list of witnesses as the witnesses were unwell. It is submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the applications filed by the plaintiff as examining the witnesses is crucial for the case and the Court ought to have allowed the applications. He submits that the reasons that are assigned by the Court while dismissing the applications are not valid. 5. Though notice is served on the respondents, no vakalath is filed on their behalf. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. This is a suit of the year 2013, where the petitioner is seeking injunction. After the cross-examination of the plaintiff, on an application, it was recalled and later some more documents were filed, still the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3286 WP No. 22863 of 2019 Court has accommodated the plaintiff and he has failed to furnish the list of witnesses. Thereafter, these applications were filed. The trial Court had rightly observed that if the witnesses are unwell that cannot be an impediment for the plaintiff not to file the list of the witnesses. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there are no bonafide in the manner in which the plaintiff is prosecuting the matter and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the applications and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41