- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30606 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ABDUL SARDAR @ WAHAB S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB SAHEB AND LATE ZULEKHA BEE AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.38/13, H.NO.3RD STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE -25 PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SRI SAJJAD AHMED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DATTATRAYA M JOSHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT HASEENA BEGUM W/O LATE ABDUL KHALAQ AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS D/O LATE ZULEKHA BEE 2. SMT.FAHIMA BEGUM W/O BABA HUSSAIN D/O LATE ZULEKHA BEE AGED MAJOR BOTH ARE R/AT NO 38 H NO.3 STREET, TATA LANE ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560025. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 3. SMT. NAYEENA BEGUM W/O ASIF JANI D/O ZULEKHA BEE AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.42, ANTHONY NICHOLES STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560025. 4. SMT. ZAMRUD BEGUM W/O FIAZ AHMED AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.79, 2ND CROSS TANNERY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR SIDDIQ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: NOTICE TO R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 09.08.2024 PASSED IN IA NO.15 AND 16 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 42ND ADDL. CIVIL COURT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN FDP NO. 98/2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the XLII Addl. Civil Court and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.15 filed under Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.16 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by the defendant No.1 in FDP No.98/2017, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said applications. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit i.e., O.S.No.391/2012 for partition and declaration. The said suit came to be decreed on 14.02.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed FDP No.98/2017. In the final decree proceedings, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.15 filed under Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.16 filed under XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to reopen and recall the order by setting the order dated 20.01.2024 to permit the defendants to further cross examine PW-1. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 09.08.2024 has rejected the said applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, the defendant has not cross-examined the PW-1 and seven - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 times the evidence of PW-1 has been closed and applications have been filed to reopen the evidence of PW-1 for cross-examination. Moreover, PW-1 is a senior citizen aged more than 86 years. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. There is no error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 5. The Trial Court in paragraph-18 of the impugned order has observed as follows: “18. On 27.9.2023, I.A.Nos.13 and 14 were filed by the respondent to reopen and recall P.W.1 for cross. The case was posted for objection to I.A.Nos.13 and 14 and it was called on 7.10.2023. On 7.10.2023, it was allowed and P.W.1 was cross-examined and the case was posted on 9.11.2023 for further cross of P.W.1 and again P.W.1 was further cross-examined and the case was adjourned to 6.12.2023. On the said date, further cross of P.W.1 was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 adjourned due to want of Court time and it was posted to 20.1.2024. On the said date i.e., on 20.1.2024, P.W.1 was present, respondent and his counsel were absent. Further cross of P.W.1 was taken as nil and the petitioner's side evidence was closed and posted for respondent's evidence. On 20.2.2024, the P.W.1 was present. The respondent prayed time and it was adjourned to 4.4.2024. On 4.4.2024, the petitioners were present and the respondent was absent. The respondent's evidence was taken as nil and it was adjourned to 10.6.2024. On 10.6.2024, petitioners arguments were heard on merits and it was adjourned to 21.6.2024 for respondent's argument. On 21.6.2024, the present applications came to be filed by the respondent to recall P.W.1 for further cross. On perusal of order sheet it reveals that, from 19.2.2022 till 21.6.2024, I.A.Nos.3 to 14 except, I.A.No.8 were filed by the respondent to reopen and recall P.W.1 for further cross. I.A.Nos.3 to 14 except I.A.No.8 were allowed by giving opportunities to the respondent to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.1 was also cross-examined in part in three different dates. The record reveals that, the petitioners are claiming share in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 income of the petition schedule property and P.W.1 is aged more than 86 years. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities for the respondent to cross-examine P.W.1 in full, he has failed to cross-examine P.W.1 in full. It shows that the intention of the respondent is to deprive the petitioners from enjoying the fruits of the preliminary decree during the lifetime of P.W.1. it shows that the respondent's intention is to drag on the drawing of the final decree in the petition. This Court views that sufficient opportunities have been given to the respondent to complete the cross of P.W.1. No reasonable grounds made out by the respondent to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. With this observation, I answer point No.1 in the negative.” 6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it is very clear that several opportunities have been given to the petitioner herein to further cross examine PW-1, but he has failed to do so. Moreover, PW-1 is aged more than 86 years. That too, when the matter was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16930 WP No. 30606 of 2024 posted for final orders, the present applications have been filed. Therefore, it appears that only in order to protract the proceedings, the present applications have been filed. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. 7. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of petition, all pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56