- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 39413 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHAMANI W/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. ARUN S S/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. C.S.ASHA D/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BEHIND NETAJI POPULAR SCHOOL, WARD NO. 30, MALLESHWARAM EXTENSION, IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159 …PETITIONERS (BY MS.THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVARAJU S/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DIST- 571 511 2. SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA W/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, R/AT KONAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAKPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DIST- 562 117 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ANBOUT 48 YEARS D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, R/AT NO. 26/A, GURUPPANAPALYA, BANNERUGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 029 4. SMT. MANJULA W/O. PUTTASWAMY, D/O. LATE. S.V.SHIVANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VANDARAGUPPE VILLAGE, SILK FARM POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANGARA DIST- 571 502 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2, R3, R4- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ON I.A. DATED 25.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.256/2014 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A. under order 18 rule 17 r/w of 151 of CPC in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 O.S.No.256/2014 dated 25.06.2019 by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara, the plaintiff is before this court. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for partition. The present I.A is filed to recall PW-1 by reopening the case for leading further examination in chief of PW-1 and also to mark the document. The trial court by order impugned had dismissed the said application to recall the PW-1 by re-opening the case for leading further examination in chief of PW-1. The court observed that on perusal of the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs which do not disclose about the documents that have to be produced by the plaintiff and how they are relevant to the present suit. Without producing the documents and explaining about the documents only seeking permission to lead further examination of chief of PW-1 cannot be permitted. Moreover, the matter is already posted for arguments, at this stage IAs., without proper reason is filed which shows the negligence of the plaintiff and also it is abuse of process of law and accordingly dismissed the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner submits that court has failed to consider the fact that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 purpose of recalling and re-opening the case, they want to mark the document that is passed by the district court in Misc.No.17/2014 which is an important document, where it is the specific case of the defendants that the probate is granted and by virtue of this order the same is set aside. It is submitted that the court without considering all these aspects and without looking at the substantial justice had dismissed the application. It is submitted that if this application is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the defendant and on hyper technical grounds this application is dismissed. [ 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that infact earlier a similar application is filed by the plaintiff on 24.01.2019. On 06.02.2019 the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that I.A. may be allowed and on costs of Rs.1,200/- reopen the case for further examination in chief of PW-1. As there was no representation of behalf of the plaintiff and counsel, the court had closed evidence of PW-1 and posted the matter for arguments, at that stage this application came to be filed. He submits that when the opportunity is given the petitioner, he has failed to examine PW-1. He submits that this is only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings, they are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 coming up with one application or the other and the court had rightly considered all these aspects and had rightly dismissed the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is for partition. The defendant is relying on a probate. According to the plaintiff that probate was cancelled on his application in the year 2016 itself. Already in 2019 an application is filed, the court had allowed the application for reopen and recall. The plaintiff for the reasons best known to has kept quite then the evidence is closed and the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage this application is filed. The reasons that are given by the court is that the application do not contain what is the reason and for what purpose they want to recall PW-1 for further examination and to reopen the case. This court have also perused the affidavit that is filed, as rightly observed by the court there are no reasons stated what is the purpose of that document and how is it relevant and why they want to recall and reopen the case. It appears that at every stage there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not pursuing the matter and coming up with these kind of applications and the minimum - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5560 WP No. 39413 of 2019 care is not taken to even state what is that he requires in spite of an earlier order passed by the court. 6. In the considered opinion of this court, there are no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff and the court had rightly dismissed the application and this court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. As the suit is of the year 2014, the trial court shall disposed of the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than year. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6