1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.12163 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. BHASKAR B.K., S/O LATE SRI. B.M. KALAPPA, R/AT NO.19, “DEVA”, 3RD CROSS, SUDARSHANA LAYOUT, GOTTIGERE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 098 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. H. CHANDRAKALA, W/O SRI. C. HUCCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT: NO.246, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SRIGANDHANAGAR HEGGANAHALLI EXTENSION, OPP. TO K.T.G COLLEGE BENGALURU – 560 091 …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. ARCHANA T.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 07.04.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.74) IN O.S.NO.27244/2012 VIDE ANNX- A BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION AND ETC., 2 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashing of an order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.74) in O.S.No.27244/2012 and consequently allow the application for recalling of cross- examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 2. The Petitioner is the defendant No.1 and the Respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. 3. The Respondent herein filed a suit O.S.No.27244/2012 against the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. 4. Plaintiff filed an application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC by producing GPA to lead evidence and the same was allowed and 3 the matter when posted for plaintiff’s evidence, chief affidavit of PW-1 was filed and posted for cross examination. When it was posted for cross examination, PW-1 was partly cross examined and further cross examination was deferred. After giving time, the Court considered cross examination as NIL on 19.02.2020. 5. Subsequently, an application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 2 was filed and the same was allowed and witness summons were issued and witness was examined as PW-2. On 22.07.2021, an application was filed to recall the cross-examination of PW-1 to which objections were filed by plaintiff and the same was allowed with cost on 27.08.2021. Due to non appearance of defendant counsel, the cross examination of PW-2 was taken as NIL. 6. On 03.01.2022, the defendant No.1 filed an application to under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC for recalling of cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2. The trial court by looking at the mistakes, allowed the application filed on 03.01.2022 subject to the condition that defendant counsel should not take unnecessary adjournments. 4 7. Again, on 11.03.2022, when both PW-1 and PW-2 were present, time was prayed by the defendant counsel, however, court, by observing that there is no genuine reason to grant more time, considered cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 as NIL. 8. Then, an another application was filed on 07.04.2022, under Order 18 Rule 17 and section 151 of CPC for recalling of cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 and the said application came to be dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant, petitioner has approached this court. 10. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order would cause serious prejudice to the defendant No.1 as he would be deprived of an opportunity to show to the Court the falsity of the claim made by the petitioner and thereby he would be handicapped in defending the false case against him. 12. It was also contended that the trial court dismissed the application because the similar earlier I.A has been allowed with 5 costs, but the Trial Court failed to consider the personal exigencies and inconveniences of the defendant’s counsel. 13. It was further contended that the Order is based on conjectures and surmises and same is without appreciating the established principle of law that procedure should always sub- serve the purpose of substantial justice and should not obstruct the course of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 14. On perusing the material on record and considering the submissions of counsels, it is observed that the petitioner has been deprived his opportunity of cross-examining PW.1 and PW.2 and further it is observed that due to personal inconvenience of the counsel, PW.1 has not been examined. In view of the above observations, the impugned Order dated dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.74) in O.S.No.27244/2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the parties to cross-examine PW.1 and PW.2 and further, it is observed that the matter is pertaining to the year 2012. Hence, it is directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the 6 suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv Ct-VS