- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.35565 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SRINIVASA TRUST A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1881, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT 7/21, 1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560080. REP.BY ITS TRUSTEE AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, D. A. SRINIVAS 2. KALPAJA DALAVOI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, TRUSTEE OF M/S. SRINIVASA TRUST, AT NO. 87, SAI KESHAV, OPPOSITE SAI GARDENS, SEEGAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 067. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA., SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D. A. THEJESHWARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O K. M. SRINIVASA MURTHY, R/AT NO. 5/25, 10TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 066. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 2. EKTA KUKREJA DIRECTOR OF ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.L TD., D/O. OF LATE NANDA KUMAR BASHOMAL MENDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 21B, KINGFISHER TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 d 3. ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 100/1, CITY CENTRE OPP. TO TOWN HALL, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, AVNASH AMARALAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH .,SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.MANASA B.RAO., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 AND R-3; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 25.11.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.11.2025 (ANNX-A) IN IA NO. 12 AND IA NO. 13 IN OS NO. 1453/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned senior counsel – Sri K.N. Phanindra on behalf of learned counsel – Sri Rohan Hosmath for petitioners and learned senior counsel – Sri G.L. Vishwanath on behalf of learned counsel – Smt. Manasa B. Rao for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.12 & 13 in O.S. No.1453/2024. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a Judgment and Decree in the following manner: (a) Grant a Decree of Specific Performance directing the Defendant No.1 to execute a Sale Deed in relation to the suit Schedule Properties in favour of the Plaintiff and if for some reason, the Defendant No.1 fails to execute the Sale Deed/ Deed of Conveyance, then for appropriate directions for the Sale Deeds to be registered through court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 (b) Grant a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, legal representatives, henchmen, assigns, or any other person acting or claiming through them from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit Schedule Property; (c) Grant costs; (d) For such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity." 4. During the course of trial, after adducing evidence of plaintiff no.1 as PW.1 and conclusion of cross-examination of PW.1 by defendant Nos.2 and 3, I.A. Nos.12 and 13 came to be filed by the learned counsel for plaintiffs. I.A. No.12 is filed to re-open the stage of plaintiffs evidence and permit the plaintiffs to lead further evidence and I.A. No.13 is filed to recall the order dated 6.11.2025 i.e. stage of closure of plaintiffs evidence. The applications were seriously opposed by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The defendant no.1 did not object the applications being allowed. On consideration of submissions of learned counsels on either side, the trial Court rejected both - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 the applications. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. It is the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that though both the plaintiffs and defendants have not filed their list of witnesses. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract and plaintiff No.2 is already a party in the suit proceedings and is none other than Trustee of plaintiff no.1 – Trust represented by its Trustee – Sri D.A. Srinivas. After conclusion of cross-examination of PW.1 (plaintiff No.1), learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed the present applications seeking to adduce the evidence of plaintiff no.2. Several contentions are taken with regard to why the evidence of plaintiff no.2 is to be adduced before the trial Court. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the stage of suit proceedings is presently for cross-examination of PW.1 by defendant No.1. Therefore, plaintiff’s side is not yet closed and the defendants are yet to lead evidence. Learned senior counsel further contends that the stage of examination is procedural and it ought not to defeat substantive rights of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 plaintiffs in leading evidence, since the right to cross-examine the witness would always be available. In the present case, the list of witnesses need not be filed as plaintiffs are not examining any other witness other than plaintiff no.2. Therefore, he contends that no hardship or inconvenience would be caused to the defendants if the plaintiff no.2 is examined as a witness. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow the petition and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents vehemently contends that absolutely no ground is made out as to why the plaintiffs did not file the list of witnesses in the initial stage itself with regard to examination of plaintiff no.2. In the event of filing list of witnesses, the defendant nos.2 and 3 would have waited for plaintiffs to examine fully and thereafter cross-examined together. Learned senior counsel further contends that the plaintiff – Trust has lead evidence through its Trustee – plaintiff no.1 (PW.1) and produced several documents in support of their case and is also subjected to cross-examination by defendant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 nos.2 & 3 on all the issues and now the matter is set down for cross-examination of PW.1 by defendant no.1 and hence plaintiff no.2 cannot be examined as a witness. It is further contention of learned senior counsel that only with an intention to cover up lacuna in the evidence of PW.1, this application is filed without filing the list of witnesses. It is also submitted that the suit is instituted on behalf of the Trust through its Trustees and both the Trustees are bound on the evidence already rendered before the Court and as such does not call for evidence of plaintiff no.2 and the present applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings and to harass the defendants. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the petition and sustains the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels on either side and perused the material on record. 8. The point that would arise for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court requires to be set aside and opportunity be given to plaintiff no.2 to adduce evidence ? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 9. The fact remains that plaintiff no.2 is none other sister of plaintiff no.1, who is Trustee of the 1st plaintiff/Trust. Initially, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance against defendant no.1 only. Thereafter, the subsequent purchasers – defendant no.2 and 3 were impleaded. Apparently, there is no bar for the plaintiff no.1 to file an affidavit to examine plaintiff no.2 so also there is no bar for the plaintiff no.2 to adduce evidence as a witness. 10. In the present case, the plaintiff no.1 is seeking to examine plaintiff no.2 as a witness. The same is opposed by the other side mainly on the ground that only with an intention to cover up the lacuna in the evidence of PW.1, these applications are filed without filing the list of witnesses. This aspect can be addressed by the trial Court suitably. The suit is instituted on behalf of the Trust through its Trustee and both Trustees are bound by the evidence already rendered before the Court and in the event evidence is adduced by plaintiff No.1 (PW.1) on certain aspect of the matter and the same is already cross-examined by defendant nos.2 and 3, such aspect has to be curtailed and restricted by the trial Court, if the same - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 evidence is adduced by plaintiff no.2. It is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to curtail such of the evidence which is already covered by PW.1 in his evidence. Of course, the defendants are at liberty to oppose the evidence which is already covered by PW.1 in his evidence. Further, no hardship or inconvenience would be caused to the defendants, if the applications are allowed. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to provide one more opportunity to plaintiff no.2 to examine herself in the suit proceedings. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: O RD E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 22.11.2025 passed on I.A. Nos. 12 & 13 in O.S. No.1453/2024 on the file of the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-02), is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. Nos.12 & 13 are allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55032 WP No. 35565 of 2025 iii) The plaintiff No.2 is permitted to adduce evidence within the time frame. The trial Court shall fix the time frame taking cognizance of the judgment passed by this Court in M.F.A. No.6603/2024 decided on 30th October 2024, whereby time frame is fixed to dispose of the suit. iv) The trial Court is at liberty to curtail the evidence which is already covered by PW.1 in his evidence. Of course, the defendants are at liberty to oppose the evidence which is already covered by PW.1 in his evidence. v) The trial Court shall fix the date of recording of evidence of plaintiff No.2 and the parties shall abide by the same and in case the same is not adhered to, the trial Court shall take the evidence of plaintiff no.2 as 'nil' and proceed further in the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3