- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21144 WP No. 11621 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11621 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHA SATHYANARAYAN W/O LATE SATHYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202 2ND FLOOR, NO.960, 12TH MAIN ROAD HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGARA BENGALURU-560 008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT KAVITHA C.N D/O NAGAPPA H.L AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ADITYA LAYOUT, TALAGATTAPURA BENGALURU-560 062 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. GULNAAZ KAUR ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21144 WP No. 11621 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ON IA NO. 8 AND IA NO. 9 IN O.S.NO. 2203 OF 2023 DTD. 28.03.2025 VIDE ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - defendant is before this Court calling in question rejection of an application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the CPC' for short) seeking recall of PWs-2 and 3 for cross -examination. 2. Heard Shri Harish N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. S. Gulnaaz Kaur Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. A transaction between the petitioner and the respondent is an agreement of sale. This leads the respondent - plaintiff before the concerned Court in O.S.No.2203/2023 seeking specific performance of the contract that was entered into between the parties on 16.12.2021 or refund of the advance that was paid pursuant to the agreement of sale at Rs.42,00,000/- with interest. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21144 WP No. 11621 of 2025 4. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or the defence of the respondent. The petitioner files an application initially under Order 18 Rule 17 seeking cross-examination of PWs-2 and 3. The said application was posted on few days and the petitioner did cross-examine the PWs-2 and 3, though partially. Later, a second application emerges from the hands of the petitioner on 05.02.2025 and the matter was then adjourned on four occasions directing permitting cross-examination of PWs-2 and 3 by the petitioner. The petitioner - defendant does not avail of the opportunity and therefore, the concerned Court rejects the application in terms of the order impugned dated 28.03.2025 by observing that four adjournments were taken by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant to cross-examine PWs-2 and 3 and the suit for specific performance was of the year 2023 and therefore, the application comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity is granted, the cross- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21144 WP No. 11621 of 2025 examination of PWs-2 and 3 would be completed on the said date. 6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would put up vehement opposition in the teeth of the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner one last straw of opportunity of cross-examination of PWs-2 and 3 by allowing the application so filed by the petitioner on imposing cost to be paid to the plaintiff. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner would not get any further opportunity other than the one that is now being granted to cross-examine the PWs-2 and 3. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The order passed by the learned XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos.8 and 9 in O.S.No.2203/2023 dated 28.03.2025 stands quashed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21144 WP No. 11621 of 2025 iii) The application is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. iv) The concerned Court shall fix the date for cross-examination of PWs-2 and 3 and the petitioner - defendant shall completely cross-examine PWs-2 and 3 on the said date. v) It is made clear that no further adjournment should be granted by the concerned Court. In the event, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner - defendant would seek adjournment, the opportunity that is now granted would be lost. The Court shall regulate its procedure, thereon. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:BHK