- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10052 WP No. 105643 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105643 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ANAND DUNDAPPA KUMBHAR AGE: YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, ATHANI-591304. 2. SHRIKANT SHRIMANT PAWAR AGE: 50 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHABADHABAHATTI, ATHANI-591304. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TANIBAI W/O APPASAHEB JAGATAP AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHABADHABAHATTI, ATHANI-591304. 2. SIDDUBA S/O APPASAHEB JAGATAP, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. DHABADHABAHATTI ATHANI-591304. 3. APPASAHEB LAXMAN JAGATAP AGE: 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10052 WP No. 105643 of 2025 OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHABADHABAHATTI ATHANI-591304. 4. SMT. SUEKHA W/O KUMAR JADHAV, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUNDEWADI, ATHANI-591212. 5. SMT. SHOBHA ANNASAHEB LANDAGE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.POST. DHABADHABAHATTI, ATHANI-591304. 6. SMT. BAYAKKA W/O SANJEEV PAWAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS, T/O. KODAGANUR, TQ.ATHANI-591304. 7. SMT. RAJASHREE PANDURANGA LANDAGE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORKS, R/O. DHABADHABAHATTI, TQ.ATHANI-591304. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2025 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN O.S.NO.792/2007 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS IN I A NO.34 AND 35 FILED U/O. XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC AND UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. 2) UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ISSUES ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON BLE COURT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10052 WP No. 105643 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ setting aside the order dated 17/03/2025 passed by the Ist Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani in O.S.No.792/2007 produced as Annexure-H, consequently allow the applications in I.A.No.34 and 35 filed U/O. XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC. 2) Under the given facts and circumstances issues any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. 2. The petitioners who are defendants Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.791 of 2007, are before this Court challenging the rejection of applications in I.A.Nos.34 and 35 filed by the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to re-open the case from the stage of arguments to further evidence of defendants and to recall the witnesses. The trial Court, in its detailed order, has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10052 WP No. 105643 of 2025 considered the suit being of the year 2007, the defendants had taken 3 years time to lead their evidence, and when they did not lead their evidence, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, an application had been filed to recall the stage and lead evidence. The petitioners/defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were permitted to lead their evidence. However, in spite of which, the defendants did not adduce any evidence, nor did they pay the costs which had been imposed thereon, hence the matter was once again posted for arguments after giving sufficient opportunities. Thereafter, once the matter was posted for arguments, the defendants took 3-4 adjournments to argue the matter. Without arguing, the present applications were filed. 3. A perusal of the order sheet, which has been produced and the order which is impugned, would categorically and unimpeachably establish that the defendants have been protracting the matter and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10052 WP No. 105643 of 2025 seeking for adjournments after adjournments, without any justifiable cause. The trial Court having taken all these factors into consideration, has rightly rejected the application and posted the matter for arguments. A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of the court and seek for indulgence after indulgence, if the same is allowed the trust of the General Public would be lost. 4. I do not find any infirmity in the said order, the petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/- CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74