- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1565 WP No. 100377 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100377 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RANJANA W/O HARISH KOHLI AGE. 58 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O.TILAKRAJ ANAND, BG-5, AD-345 PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI-11063 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY M MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HARISH S/O KRIPALSINGH KOHLI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O KSK NIVAS, MAHISHI PLOTS, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS OFFICE, MAHISHI ROAD DHARWAD-580001. 2. RAHUL S/O HARISH KOHLI AGE. 63 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O.TILAKRAJ ANAND BG-5, AD-345, PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI-110063. 3. MANISHA D/O HARISH KOHLI AGE. 33 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O.TILAKRAJ ANAND ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1565 WP No. 100377 of 2025 BG-5, AD-345, PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI-110063. 4. SUJAY S/O YALLAPPA SHETTY AGE. 53 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS R/O. RENUKA PRAGATI APARTMENTS, MAHARSHI ROAD, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, NEAR ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS OFFICE DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO. 11 (U/S 151 OF CPC R/W ORDER 18 RULE 17 CPC) PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN O.S. NO.260/2019 DTD.03/12/2024 IN DISMISSING THE IA FOR RECALL OF PW-1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS 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 respondents is dispensed with view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1565 WP No. 100377 of 2025 a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order on IA No. 11 (u/s 151 of CPC R/W order 18 Rule 17 CPC) passed by the court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge And CJM Dharwad in O.S. No. 260/2019 dtd. 03/12/2024 in dismissing the IA for recall of PW-1. b) Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and for costs in the ends of justice and equity. 3. What is under challenge is the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by trial Court on IA No.11 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of The Code of Civil Procedure to recall of the stage and reopening of the matter for cross-examination of PW.1. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if one more opportunity is granted the petitioner, he would cross-examine PW.1 and proceed with the matter. 5. A perusal of the detailed impugned order dated 11.12.2024 would indicate that the matter was first posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 01/12/2021 and when the cross-examination was not conducted, the evidence of PW.1 was closed and when a recall - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1565 WP No. 100377 of 2025 application was filed, the recall application having been allowed on cost. Subsequent thereto, 19 adjournments were sought for by the petitioner and again plaintiff evidence was closed. Thereafter, once again a recall application has been filed, which came to be allowed. Again the petitioner sought for and obtained several adjournments but, did not cross- examine PW.1. Once again, the side of the plaintiff was closed and in that background that the application in I.A.No.11 was filed, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. 6. A perusal of the order sheet would indicate that on several occasions costs have been imposed on the petitioner. Despite on two earlier occasions, the side of plaintiff evidence being closed and recall application having been allowed, the petitioner has chosen not to cross-examine PW.1. 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner is a resident of Delhi and as such, there has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1565 WP No. 100377 of 2025 been a delay. Even if the petitioner were to be residing at Delhi, the matter having been posted for cross-examination on 01/12/2021, No cross- examination has been conducted till date. 8. Except for filing application to recall and seeking for adjournment, even cost having not been paid, I am of the considered opinion that there is no diligence on part of the petitioner requiring this Court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction to permit to petitioner to once again cross-examine PW.1. Four years have been wasted by the petitioner in seeking for adjournments. 9. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46