- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14065 WP No. 9406 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9406 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT KOMALA D/O LATE RAMMAKKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI ANAND S/O LATE MARISIDDAIAH 2. SMT SUMALATHA D/O LATE RAMMAKKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI ANAND, S/O LATE MARISIDDAIAH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF KUDURU VILLAGE KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SIDDALINGADEVARU S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT SOMPURA VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S JAYARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14065 WP No. 9406 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PENDING DISPOSAL ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN OS NO 86/2016 QUASH THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/03/2025, WHICH IS PRODUCED 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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, on I.A.No.9 filed under section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.10 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.86/2016, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said applications. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for relief of specific performance of contract. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. The parties have adduced their evidence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14065 WP No. 9406 of 2025 Thereafter, when the matter was posed for arguments, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.9 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case from arguments to further evidence of defendants for issuance of further witness summons through Court and by hand for examining the witness and I.A.No.10 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall the case for further evidence of the defendants. The Trial Court, by impugned order has rejected the said applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. I.A.No.9 filed under Section 151 of CPC for reopening of the evidence and also filed I.A.No.10 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to examine the official of the authorized officer of Vodafone (corporate office) on the ground that the conversation between plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of transaction has to be proved. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14065 WP No. 9406 of 2025 4. The main allegation of the petitioners is that the sim No.8553983385 belongs to one Amarnath. In respect of conversation of the parties over phone, they want to summon the Authorized Officer of the Vodafone (Corporate office) as a witness. 5. If the petitioners want to prove the conversation, they can prove by summoning any other witness or by producing any relevant documents, but cannot summon the Authorized Officer of the Vodafone (Corporate office) as a witness. That too at the fag end, when the matter is posted for arguments, these applications have been filed. Considering all these matters, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10