- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7991/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE M. VENKATESHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE M. VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPATHI R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. A.V. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE M. VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE AKKAYAMMA. 3. A.V. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE M. VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE AKKAYAMMA. 4. A.V. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE M. VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE AKKAYAMMA. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE AND POST SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C. REDDY, ADV., FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M.V. ADV.,) AND: 1. M. RAMANNA S/O MARALLI MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(a) HEMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE M. RAMANNA. 1(b) AMBUJA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE M. RAMANNA. 1(c) GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O LATE M. RAMANNA. 1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/AT ATTIBELE HOBLI SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMAPPA. 3. MUNEGOWDA S/O M. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT ATTIBELE HOBLI SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 (R1 (a to c), R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DTD.20.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.131/2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 FIR RECALLING THE ORDER DTD.2.2.2019 IN DISCARDING EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF THE PW-2 PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFFS TO SUBJECT PW-2 FOR CROSS EXAMINATION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2019 passed on IA filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in O.S.No.131/2011 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote. 2. Sri.Guruprasad C. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Chandrashekara Reddy M.V., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs have adduced the evidence before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 trial Court. The matter was posted on 02.02.2019 for cross-examination of PW.2 and for further evidence of PW.3. However, on the said date PW.2 could not present himself before the Court as he underwent eye surgery and PW.3 went on pilgrimage. The trial Court without considering the explanation offered by the petitioners rejected the application to recall PW.2 for cross- examination. However, it has recalled PW.3 for further evidence. It is submitted that one opportunity may be given, and on the said date PW.2 would be present and the defendants can cross-examine the said witness on the given date. Hence he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Though notice is served, there is no representation for the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 consideration on the submissions advanced and material available on record. 5. The petitioners have filed suit in OS.No.131/2011 for relief of specific performance. The material on record indicates that the petitioners examined as PW.1 and also examined two witnesses who are the witnesses to the agreement in question as PW.2 and PW.3. The matter was posted before the trial Court on 02.02.2019. On the said date, PW.2 could not be present as he underwent eye surgery and also PW.3 went to the pilgrimage. The trial Court accepting the explanation offered by PW.3, allowed the application in part. However, it has rejected the application to recall PW.2 for cross-examination on the ground that his evidence has been discarded for not being present on the said date. In my considered view, the suit is for specific performance and one opportunity is required to be given to the petitioners to adduce evidence of PW.2. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26663 W.P. No.7991/2020 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2019 on IA filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.131/2011 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote is hereby set aside. iii) The application filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall PW.2 for cross-examination is allowed. iv) PW.2 shall present himself before the trial Court on 06.08.2025 for rendering cross-examination. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37