- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12159 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. PUSHPARAJU S/O LATE ANTHONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT RAYANURU VILLAGE, C.R.PALYA POST, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 621 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVARIYAMMA W/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O ANTHONY, D/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. RAJAMMA D/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YAERS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 4. KUM. DIVYA D/O LATE KANIKYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT MARIGEMALU VILLAGE HOSAROAD, BENGALURU - 560 030. 5. SMT. PUSHPA W/O ANTHONI SWAMY, D/O ANTHONAPPA, R/AT RAYANURU VILLAGE, C.R.PALYA POST, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU -621 105. 6. SMT. ANNAMMA W/O SANISLAUS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT ADUGONDANAHALLI, ATTIBELE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 107. 7. SABASTIN S/O B. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MESTRI PALYA, RACHENAHALLI DHAKLE, KRISHNARAJPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 8. SMT. VYJANTHIMALA W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, SHIVALINGA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 21.08.2019, NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH, V/O DATED 10.06.2025, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI. S.G. SWAMY FOR R8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 IN O.S.NO.5122/2012 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JDUGE BENGLAURU (CCH-5) REJECTING THE TWO APPLICATIONS UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR RE-CALL THE PW1 TO LEAD HIS FURTHER EXAMINATION IN CHIEF AND ANOTHER APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR RE-OPEN THE MATTER FROM THE STAGE OF ARGUMENT TO FURTHER EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF PLAINTIFF PRODUCED AT ANNX-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: ''a). Set aside the order dated: 15-03-2019 in O.S. No.5122/2012 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Session Judge Bengaluru. (CCH-5) rejecting the two applications under order 18 Rule 17 R/w section 151 of code of civil procedure for re-call the Pw1 to lead his further examination in chief and another application under section 151 of code of civil procedure for re-open the matter from the stage of argument to further examination in chief of plaintiff produced at Annexure-G. (b). Direct the Court below to consider two applications filed by the petitioner under order 18 Rule 17 R/w section 151 of code of civil procedure for re-call the Pw1 to lead his further examination in chief and another application under section 151 of code of civil procedure for re-open the matter from the stage of argument to further examination in chief of plaintiff. (c). Grant writ and Pass such other orders, as the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.'' 2. Heard. 3. Sri. B.S. Nataraja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share and also sought for the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 17.07.1984, claiming to be executed by the father of the petitioner in favour - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 of defendant No.7 is not binding. It is further submitted that the parties in the suit adduced the evidence and thereafter the petitioner filed applications for reopening of the case and to recall the PW.1 to lead further evidence. The said application came to be rejected, solely on the ground that the applications were filed after the matter was posted for arguments. It is submitted that the petitioners have categorically made averments in the affidavit accompanying the application that on the date of execution of the sale deed by defendant No.6 and defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.8, the father of the petitioner was not alive and he expired on 15.03.2004 and he intended to place the said fact with assertion along with the death certificate, which would help the petitioner to prove his case insofar as the second prayer in the plaint. However, the trial Court without appreciating the same, proceeded to reject the applications. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the respondents have taken specific objection to the application that the applications have been filed belatedly and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 the alleged death certificate of the father of the petitioner is concocted and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner filed O.S.No.5122/2012 seeking the relief of the partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share in the suit scheduled property and further relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 17.07.1984 alleged to have been executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.7 is not binding. The plaint averments clearly indicate that the petitioner has laid a foundation to prove that the sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner dated 17.07.1984 is not binding on them. However, the defendant No.8 has denied the assertion made in the plaint by way of written statement. When the matter was posted for arguments, the applications came to be filed for reopening of the case and for recall of PW1 for leading further evidence. The affidavit accompanying the said applications clearly indicates that the petitioner wanted to adduce evidence further by way of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 producing the death certificate of the father of the petitioner, claims to have died on 15.03.2004. However, the trial Court proceeded to reject the said application only on the ground that the petition was filed belatedly. 7. It is not in dispute that though the application is filed belatedly, it is always open for the other side to deny the date of death, including the certificate which the petitioner intended to produce in the trial Court. Mere allowing such an application and permitting the petitioner to produce evidence would not cause any prejudice to the other side, nor would it take away the admissions recorded in the course of evidence. 8. Hence, in my considered view, the applications are deserved to be allowed on terms, as the applications are filed belatedly. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i). Petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21457 WP No. 12159 of 2019 (ii). Impugned order dated 15.03.2019 passed in O.S.No. 5122/2012 passed on applications filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC are set-aside and consequently applications are allowed subject to petitioner paying cost of Rs.3,000 to the defendant No.8. (iii). The petitioner shall adduce the further evidence of PW1 on 02.07.2025 without taking any adjournment. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25