- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3802 WP No. 47787 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 47787 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SREEDEVI D., W/O. LATE TRILOKA CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.286, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 2. KUMARI TULASI T., D/O TRILOKA CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS R/AT NO.286, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 5262 123 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ANAND GANESH M., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.USHADEVI K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. DHANUSH T., S/O. PARAVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. KUMARI MANASA T., D/O. PARAVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.22, NANDISHWARA NILAYA, 9TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, GOKULA, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 054. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3802 WP No. 47787 of 2019 4. B.H.NANJUNDAIAH S/O. LATE B.H.HANUMANTHARAIAHPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SRI. MARUTHI SADANA, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, NEAR MANDARAVANA PARK, GOKULA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU TOWN 5. D. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. DODDANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT ANNENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HURKERE POST, TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 6. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O LATE M.R.DASS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.15, PID NO.7731 UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNABASAWESHWARA LAYOUT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 123 7. KIRAN CHAND S/O LATE M.R.DASS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT JAGALI COLLEGE ROAD DURAVANI NAGARA POST BENGALURU-16 …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 17/3/20 NOTICE TO R6 & R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 IN O.S.NO.188/2016 ON I.AS. NO.XI AND XII PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE -F. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3802 WP No. 47787 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.XI and XII in O.S.No.188/2016 dated 20.08.2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and injunction. After the evidence of the plaintiffs closed, I.A.No.XI is filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to file the list of witness and I.A.No.XII is filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case of the plaintiff to lead further evidence. It is stated that plaintiff No.3 has examined and evidence is closed, but to prove her case, one more witness is necessary. Therefore, she requested to reopen the case to lead the evidence. The defendants have filed their objections to dismiss the applications. 3. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff observing that on behalf of the plaintiffs side, three witnesses have been examined as PW.1 and 3 and at their request evidence was closed on 18.07.2018. Thereafter, the case was posted for evidence of defendant and evidence of DW.1 has completed. After one year, the plaintiffs - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3802 WP No. 47787 of 2019 have filed these applications to recall the plaintiffs to lead their further evidence. This case is filed in the year 2016, till today the trial has not been concluded and sufficient opportunity has been given to the plaintiffs. Hence it is not proper to once again recall the plaintiff to lead their further evidence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 submits that in the written statement, they have denied the relationship of the plaintiff and her husband and in that regard she wanted to examine the father. It is submitted that the earlier advocate has not properly advised as such, they could not come up with an application and examining the witness and reopening the case is very much essential for the plaintiffs. All these aspects were not considered by the trial Court. 5. Though notice is served on all the respondents, no vakalath is filed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the entire material on record. This suit is of the year 2016 and it is stated that now the father has to be examined. In the light of the fact that the defendants have denied the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3802 WP No. 47787 of 2019 relationship of the plaintiff and her husband and after engaging the new counsel, they came to know about the requirement of examining the witness and filed this petition. The trial Court had rightly observed that these applications are filed belatedly. But considering the substantial interest of the parties and for giving opportunity to the plaintiff, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.Nos.XI and XII in O.S.No.188/2016 dated 20.08.2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is set aside. ii. Consequently, I.A.Nos.11 and 12 are allowed on the condition that the plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as cost to the defendants. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. iv. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39