- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38596 WP No. 16967 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 16967 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYANTHI, W/O SHEKAR SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.15-42/1, PADMASHALI COMPOUND, NEAR ABBAKKA CIRLCE, ULLAL, MANGALURU-575 020, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JEEVAN.K, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SRI. YOGISH SHETTY, S/O THAMMAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ‘ANJANEYA KRIPA’ HARIPADE, KOIKUDE VILLAGE, VIA HALEYANAGADY, MANGALURU TALUK-575 022, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38596 WP No. 16967 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD 28.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOs.14 AND 15 IN OS.NO.164/2018 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MOODABIDIRI, D.K, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, THEREBY TO ALLOW THE I.A.NOs.14 AND 15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2024 AND RE-OPENING OF THE CASE TO THE STAGE OF FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW1 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 JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER 1. List has been revised. No one appears for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 28.05.2024 passed on IA Nos. 14 & 15 filed by Defendant No.1/petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38596 WP No. 16967 of 2024 Procedure, 19081 and Section 151 of CPC, whereby the prayer made to the trial Court to re-open the case and recall the PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination was rejected. 4. I have perused the impugned order and find that, Point No.1 framed was, whether the defendant No.1 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. The Court noticed that both the applications were filed in the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents with respect to the suit schedule property. It is noted from perusal of the applications filed by defendant No.1 that they were to re-open and to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The Court noted that when the matter was posted for final arguments on merits, again an application was filed to cross-examine PW.1. After noting a catena of decisions of this Court, the Trial Court held that defendant No.1 has not made out any 1 CPC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38596 WP No. 16967 of 2024 reasonable ground to allow the applications. IAs were accordingly rejected. 5. I find no error in the order impugned. Given the fact that the suit is of the year 2018 and repeatedly applications have been filed by the defendant No.1 for the very same purpose, the Court was justified in rejecting the IAs. This petition lacks merit and therefore, it is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30