- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12349 WP No. 50531 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 50531 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K R CHANDREGOWDA S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KANCHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN., ADVOCAE FOR SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SHIVEGOWDA. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHIKKA HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE.A DATED 07.9.2019 MADE IN O.S.NO.632/2013 PASSED BY THE 6TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION LA NO.30 WITH COST OF RS.3000/- AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12349 WP No. 50531 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.632/2013, on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') filed by him for the relief of specific performance is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2019 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the application in I.A.No.30 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC. By which the plaintiff/petitioner herein had sought for permission to lead further evidence. 2. The Trial Court while dismissing the said application at paragraph No.16 has observed as under: ''16. In the present case, the case was posted for final arguments on 04.11.2016, 23.10.2018 and 20.03.2019. But, the final arguments are not advanced and that at present the case is at the stage of cross of PW.1. Further, the plaintiff has filed applications to lead further plaintiffs evidence and to recall PW.1 on 26.11.2016, 09.03.2017, 07.12.2017, 05.11.2018 and 27.05.2019. Further, the plaintiff has filed application to examine witnesses on 09.01.2018, 13.06.2018, 07.03.2019 and the present application. Further, the Court has passed order not to seek for adjournments on 05.12.2016, 21.06.2017 and 30.11.2018. Further, on 10.06.2019 I.A.No.28 and 29 were allowed on a condition that no further application filed by the plaintiff will be entertained for examining the witnesses or for producing documents on behalf of plaintiff.'' - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12349 WP No. 50531 of 2019 It is only on this ground, the Trial Court has rejected the application. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that if an opportunity is granted, the plaintiff/petitioner would go on with leading evidence without seeking any further adjournment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant on the other hand vehemently opposing the application submit that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff/petitioner, as seen at paragraph No.16 of the order. No purpose would be served inasmuch as the petitioner filed the above application only to protract the matter. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. The order impugned is dated 07.09.2019, which is passed about six years ago. Though, the reasons assigned in the paragraph No.16 indicate that the plaintiff/petitioner is in the habit of making applications to recall himself for the further evidence. In the facts situation of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the petition by setting aside the order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12349 WP No. 50531 of 2019 with a direction to the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to lead evidence on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court, making it further clear, if the plaintiff/petitioner fails to avail such opportunity, no further opportunity be granted the plaintiff/petitioner. 7. The Trial Court has imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/-, the same shall be paid before the plaintiff/petitioner being permitted to lead evidence as directed. With the above observation, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13