- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12095 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MARLINGEGOWDA S/O BAIRAPPA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NAGARTHI VILLAGE, HOLENARSIPURA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAKSHMI D/O SWAMYSHETTI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT C/O NO.3043, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, T K LAYOUT, TONNACHIKOPPALU MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.M.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JDUGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HOLENARASIPURA PASSED ON APPLICATION U/S 151 OF C.P.C. IN O.S.NO.24/11. THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.V. THE PLANITIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN HAS FILED APPLICATION U/O 18 R-17 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 RE-CALL THE CHIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.VI. THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN HAS FILED APPLICATION U/O 7 R-14(a) OF C.P.C. SEEKING PERMISSION TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT THE SAID I.A. IS NO. AS I.A.NO.VII VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This Writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari by setting aside/quash the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 in O.S.no.24/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Holenarasipura passed on application u/s 151 of C.P.C. the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.V. The plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed application u/o 18 r-17 of C.P.C. praying to re-call the chief of the plaintiff evidence the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.VI. The plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed application u/o 7 r-14 (a) of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce additional document the said I.A. is No. as I.A.No.VII. Which is marked as Annexure-A etc." 2. Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance against the respondent and after completion of recording of the evidence, an application was filed to recall P.W.1 and sought for permission to produce RTC, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 submitted that the said RTC is necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, as the respondent/ plaintiff has denied that he is not the owner of the property and this RTC would clinch the issue. Hence, for complete adjudication, an opportunity may be provided for production of the RTC and seeks for allowing the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri Chandrashekar N., learned counsel for Sri K.M. Somashekara, learned counsel for respondent/defendant supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has rightly recorded the reasons that three years has been granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence and he has failed to produce the same and filing of the above application is nothing but protracting the proceedings. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.24/2011 against the respondent herein seeking for judgment and decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.04.2009. The records indicate that the parties have adduced evidence and matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed application under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC praying to re-open the case, recall P.W.1 for further examination- in-chief and application filed under Order VII rule 14 (a) of CPC for condonation of delay in filing the application for production of evidence. Said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground of delay. The petitioner has made specific assertion in the plaint that the respondent has executed agreement of sale on 08.04.2009 which has been denied by the respondent in the written statement contending that he has not executed the aforesaid agreement and also that he was not having right to alienate the said property. Said assertion is denied by the petitioner in his evidence. However, he intends to produce the RTC of the said suit schedule property which is prior to the execution of the agreement of sale to indicate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 that the respondent/defendant is the lawful owner and eligible to execute the sale deed. 6. In my considered view, the aforesaid document would be necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, though there is delay in filing the application, should not be a ground to reject the same. However, this Court also cannot ignore the fact that application is filed during the course of the arguments. Hence, application is deserves to be allowed on terms. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC., Holenaraspura, on I.A.No.V to VII, in O.S.no.24/2011, is set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25728 WP No. 12095 of 2019 (iii) Consequently, I.A.no.V to VII are allowed subject to petitioner paying cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/defendant. (iv) Petitioner shall examine P.W.1 on 04.08.2025 without seeking any adjournment. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26