- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101441 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. SIDDDAPPA KALASI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. YARZARVI-591119, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA TOKALAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILTIBHAVI-591344, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. FAKIRAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA GUNDAPPANAVAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARZARVI-591119, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. HANAMANT S/O. DYAMANNA BUSI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARZARVI-591119, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. BASAPPA S/O. DYAMANNA BUSI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARZARVI-591119, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 5. LAKKAVVA W/O. DYAMANNA BUSI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YARZARVI-591119, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SHIVAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA BUSI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARZARVI-591119 TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENED WITH V/O DATED 24.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ORDER DATED 23-01-2025 IN O.S.NO.114/2023 PASSED BY C/C II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAUNDATTI VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; BE PLEASED TO GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF TO WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) To issue writ of certiorari by quashing order dated 23-01-2025 in O.S.No.114/2023 passed by c/c II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Saundatti vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 b) Be pleased to grant any other relief to which this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case. 3. The facts in brief are; 3.1. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.114/2023 seeking for partition, declaration and separate possession, before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti. 3.2. The plaintiff led her evidence, the last of the evidence was laid on 05.12.2024 when PW1 marked Exhibit P15. Noting the absence of the defendants, the cross of PW1 was taken as Nil and the matter was posted for arguments on 09.01.2025. 3.3. On 09.01.2025, the arguments were heard and the matter was posted for judgment on 23.01.2025. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 3.4. On 23.01.2025 the learned trial Judge having noticed that the written statement had been filed by the defendants, came to a conclusion that the matter could not have been posted for arguments and an opportunity ought to have been given to the defendants for cross- examination of PW1 and recalled the stage and posted the matter for cross-examination of PW1. 3.5. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, once the cross- examination of PW1 was taken as Nil, if the Trial Court were to recall the matter for an earlier stage, it could have been recalled only to the stage of defendant's evidence and could not have been recalled to the stage of cross-examination of PW1, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 when there was no application made by the defendant in that regard. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers. 6. It is undisputed that the last of the evidence of PW1 got concluded on 05.12.2024. In fact, on that day, a document was also marked through PW1. Noting the absence of the defendants, the matter was posted for arguments. 7. It is trite law that necessary opportunity has to be given to the parties at all stages. Just because the defendants were absent, it was not required for the matter to be posted for arguments, more so, when the written statement had been filed by the defendants, as observed by the Trial Court on 23.01.2025. The Trial Court, realizing the mistake, has corrected the same by recalling the stage to the cross-examination of PW1 to provide an opportunity - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3771 WP No. 101441 of 2025 to the defendants to cross-examine PW1. Of course, if the defendants do not cross-examine PW1 on the date so fixed and opportunities having been granted, the Trial Court could always close the stage of cross- examination of PW1 and proceed with the matter. In the present case, the Trial Court having corrected its mistake, I do not find any infirmity in the order. It is human to commit an error but acceptance of such error and correction thereof on one’s own without the same being pointed out by anyone is commendable. 8. No grounds being made out, with the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1