- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7134 WP No. 102912 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.102912 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O. BASAPPA NARI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JEEVAPUR, TQ. SOUNDATTI-591126, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANCHANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA DYAMANGOUDAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS, R/O. MUNAVALLI-582103, TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BASAPPA NARI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/H H WORK, R/O. JEEVAPUR-591126, TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 23/04/2025 ON I.A. 7 AND CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 24/04/2025 PASSED BY PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI IN O.S.72/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7134 WP No. 102912 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23.04.2025, dismissing IA.No.7 and the consequent order dated 24.04.2025, posting O.S.No.72 of 2019 for judgement, as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaraj P Mudhol, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 3. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2019 for specific performance of contract. It is stated that respondent No.2 - defendant No.1 is the executant of the agreement of sale, for which, defendant No.2 - petitioner herein is only consenting party. Plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3. When the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence, they have not lead any evidence. On the other hand, they sought for time. The Trial Court, after - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7134 WP No. 102912 of 2025 posting the matter for defendants’ evidence, passed the order on I.A.No.7 filed under Order XVII Rule 1 R/w. Section 151 of CPC, rejecting the same. 4. It is pertinent to note that, I.A.No.7 was filed by defendant No.2, praying for time on behalf of defendant No.1. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 23.04.2025. When the matter was posted on 24.4.2025 for defendants' evidence, learned counsel representing defendant No.1 filed the retirement memo. Noting the presence of defendant No.2 before the Trial Court, it posted the matter for arguments. At that stage, defendant No.2 filed another application under Order 17(1) of CPC, praying time for arguments. The Trial Court formed an opinion that, there are no valid grounds for allowing the application. Accordingly, the application was rejected. The matter was posted for judgment. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the said order of posting the matter for judgment by denying the opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7134 WP No. 102912 of 2025 5. On perusal of the materials on record, it is clear that, the suit is of the year 2019, filed for specific performance of contract. Plaintiff has already lead evidence by filing the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. However, PWs.2 and 3 were cross examined only on 28.03.2025. Even when the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence, for one or the other reason, the defendants were not ready to lead evidence. 6. Admittedly, defendant No.2 is not the executant’s of the document, but it is stated that, he has signed the agreement only as a consenting party. Under such circumstances, the defence that could be taken by defendant No.2 is very limited. However, defendant No.1, who is the executant of the document had filed the written statement and contested the matter. Even though, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court, to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition, permitting the defendants to lead evidence. However, the interest of the plaintiff could be safeguarded - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7134 WP No. 102912 of 2025 by imposing reasonable cost and putting the petitioner on terms. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹5000/- to the plaintiff. ii) The impugned order dated 24.04.2025, posting the matter for judgment is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to permit the defendant No.1 to lead evidence on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court. iii) It is made clear that, if the defendant No.1 fails to adduce evidence, on the date fixed by the Trial Court, it can proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, without granting further adjournment. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 39