- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 30101 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DR. ANIRUDH. V S/ON A VENUGAPAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO. 18/21 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 2. SRI N A VENUGOPAL S/O LATE N M ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A NO. 18/21 7THCROSS 9TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 REP BY HER PA HOLDER SMT MENAKA VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O N A VENUGOPAL …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. OM KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. A. RAVIGOPAL S/O LATE N M ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 19, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 2. AMULYA SUMANTH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 W/O SUMANTH DONATHI D/O N A VENUGOPAL R/A NO. 41 MOUNTAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 3. HARSHA RAVIGOPAL AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O N A RAVIGOPAL R/A NO. 19 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 4. ADARSHA RAVIGOPAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O N A RAVIGOPAL R/A NO. 19 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMESH K S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R3 AND R4 SRI. G R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER IA NO.59,60,61 DATED 25.09.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-R PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-56) BENGALURU, AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO COMPLETE THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF DW1 AND DW2 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND N AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 25.9.2025 passed on IA.Nos.59, 60 and 61 in OS No.1990/2018 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-56), Bengaluru1, whereunder the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to reopen the case, recall DWs.1 and 2 for cross-examination have been dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners have instituted a suit in OS No.1990/2018 for partition and other reliefs, wherein respondent Nos.1 to 4 are arrayed as defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 and they are the contesting defendants in the suit. Respondent No.2/defendant No.5 has been examined as DW.1 and respondent No.4/defendant No.7 has been examined as DW.2. It is forthcoming that the suit was posted for plaintiffs' evidence and since the plaintiffs did not adduce their evidence, the Trial Court vide order dated 2.7.2025 has taken the plaintiffs evidence as 'Nil'. Thereafter, defendant No.5 (DW.1) examined himself on 14.7.2025, consequent to which DW.1 has been cross-examined on 1 hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 21.7.2025, 22.7.2025, 23.7.2025, 24.7.2025, 11.9.2025, 12.9.2025, 16.9.2025, 17.9.2025, 18.9.2025 and 19.9.2025. Defendant No.7 has been examined as DW.2 on 2.9.2025 and the matter was fixed for further cross-examination of DW.2 on 3.9.2025. Since the learned counsel for plaintiffs was absent on 3.9.2025, further cross-examination of DW.2 was taken as 'Nil'. DWs.1 and 2 have been cross-examined by the counsel for the other defendants. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed IA.Nos.55 to 57 to reopen the case and to recall DWs.1 and 2 for further cross- examination, which applications were allowed by the Trial Court on cost of `500/- to each payable to DWs.1 and 2. Consequent to which, cross-examination as sought for by the plaintiffs was permitted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, DW.1 was cross- examined on 19.9.2025 and at 5.00 p.m., learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought time for further cross-examination and due to his unavailability on the next date i.e., on 20.9.2025, the matter was posted for cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2 on 22.9.2025. On 22.9.2025, IA.No.58 was filed for adjournment, which was rejected and further cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2 was taken as 'Nil'. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 4. It has been noticed by the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 25.9.2025 that on all the dates DWs.1 and 2 have been continuously present before the Court for ten hearings. It has further been recorded by the Trial Court that on 18.9.2025 and 19.9.2025, in order to accommodate cross- examination of DWs.1 and 2 as per the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, all the other matters that were posted for arguments before the Trial Court were adjourned and since cross-examination was not undertaken, the matter was posted for arguments. The Trial Court has also noticed that on two occasions, the matter has been posted for arguments. 5. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed in MFA No.1744/2024, this Court has directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of the order and the counsel appearing for both the parties were requested to assist the Trial Court for disposal of the suit. It has been placed on record that the said order dated 28.10.2024 passed in MFA No.1744/2024 was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4716/2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2025. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 6. The plaintiffs have filed IA.Nos.59 to 60 seeking for recall of DWs.1 and 2 for cross-examination. The said applications were rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 25.9.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 and perused the material on record. 8. It is clear and forthcoming from the factual matrix as has been noticed above as well as the material on record that, the plaintiffs have not adduced evidence before the Trial Court. It is further pertinent to note that adequate opportunity has been afforded to the plaintiffs to cross-examine DWs.1 and 2 and despite all the accommodations that have been afforded by the Trial Court, cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2 has not been completed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Trial Court while considering IA.Nos.59 to 61 has elaborately considered the manner in which the suit has been conducted and the progress in the suit on each and every hearing date as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 also the accommodations that have been afforded by the Trial Court to complete the trial in the suit, having regard to the directions granted by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed in MFA No.1744/2024 at the cost of adjourning other matters on the board of the Trial Court. In the said context, having regard to the factual matrix as noticed above, no fault could be found with the Trial Court in dismissing IA.Nos.59 to 61. 10. Although, it is the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners/plaintiffs have diligently cross-examined DWs.1 and 2, the said submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents by contending, inter alia, that DWs.1 and 2 being aged persons have been continuously present before the Trial Court and despite which the plaintiffs had not been diligent in prosecuting the matter and that the process of the Court is sought to be abused in the manner of the conduct of the suit, by indulging in various tactics, inter alia, filing a transfer petition to transfer the suit to another Court, which was rejected. 11. 11. However, at this juncture, it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions put forth by the parties in view of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 fact that the suit is at the final stage of the trial before the Trial Court. Suffice to state that in the interest of justice and having regard to the fact that valuable rights in immovable property between the parties is required to be adjudicated in the suit, it is expedient to afford another opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross-examine DWs.1 and 2. However, the same is required to be afforded by imposing suitable detrimental costs and by imposing appropriate/suitable conditions. In this context, it is just and proper that the request to cross-examine DWs.1 and 2 by the plaintiffs, which is made vide IAs.59 to 61 be granted subject to payment of cost of `25,000/- each payable to respondent No.2/defendant No.5/DW.1 and respondent No.4/defendant No.7/DW.2. For the said purpose, petitioners have filed a memo, which reads as follows: "MEMO The petitioners hereby furnishes the Demand Drafts bearing No.607814; 607815 ; 040168 dated: 30- 09-2025 for a sum of ` 50,000/- adhering to the Order of this Hon'ble Court passed today forenoon. The petitioners hereby most respectfully submits that the same may be recorded, in the interest of justice and equity." SD/- SD/- ADVOCATE For PETITIONERS 1st PETITIONER Bengaluru, Date:30-09-2025" - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 12. Along with the memo, the petitioners had deposited a total sum of `50,000/- drawn on Nyayamitra Sahakari Bank Niyamita, High Court Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru, in favour of The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, the details of which are as follows: (i) DD bearing No.607814, dated 30.9.2025, for `24,000/-; (ii) DD bearing No.607815; dated 30.9.2025 for `25,000/-; (iii) DD bearing No.040168; dated: 30-09-2025 for `1,000/- 13. It is further forthcoming that the Trial Court has accommodated the request made on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs for cross-examining DWs.1 and 2 by adjourning all its other matters on its board. Hence, it is just and proper that the request of the petitioners be favourably considered by requiring the petitioners to pay a further cost of `25,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i. The above writ petition is allowed; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 ii. The order dated 25.9.2025 passed on IA.Nos.59, 60 and 61 in OS No.1990/2018 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-56), Bengaluru, is set aside; iii. IA Nos.59 to 61 filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.1990/2018 are allowed and DWs.1 and 2 are recalled for further cross- examination subject to the following conditions: a. The sum of `50,000/- deposited by the petitioners in the present writ petition shall be digitally paid to respondent No.2/defendant No.5/DW.1 and respondent No.4/defendant No.7/DW.2 in a sum of `25,000/- each by the Registry of this Court; b. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall furnish the requisite details of their bank account, etc., in the Registry to enable the Registry of this Court to digitally release the amounts to their bank accounts; c. The petitioners shall pay cost of `25,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39355 WP No. 30101 of 2025 furnish proof of such payment before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing i.e., on 8.10.2025; d. In the event, the petitioners fail to pay the cost to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as ordered above, the petitioners shall lose the benefit of this order; iv. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall complete the cross- examination of DWs.1 and 2 on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court for the said purpose. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall be afforded one date each to complete the cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2; v. Subsequent to completion of cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2, the Trial Court shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17