- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27484 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI H.G.BASAVARAJAPPA S/O.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ARGICULTRUIST HANUMANHALLI VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANGERE TALUK-577 534 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARATH B BELAVIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514 2. SRI G.M.RANGAPPA S/O.MAHADEVAPPA (DEAD HIS LR DEFENDANT NO.3, WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD) SRI NATARAJ, S/O.M.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GANJIGATTE VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 3. SRI G.C.LOKESHAPPA @ LOKESHWARAPPA S/O.CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514 4. SRI G.L.CHANNABASAPPA S/O.G.C.LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514 5. SRI G.L.MANJUNATH S/O.G.C.LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTRUSIT GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514 6. SMT.H.M.SAVITRAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 30.08.2025 PASSED ON IA.NOS.22 AND 23 IN O.S.NO.72/2015 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents as no adverse orders is passed against the respondents. 3. The petitioner is none other than the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. 4. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. The plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial Court for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. At the fag end of the trial that is when the evidence of the defendant was concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, defendant No.7 has come up with two applications, one in IA.No.22 under Order XVIII Rule 17 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall of DW.2 and another in IA.No.23 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of marking certain documents, which had already been produced before the Court. 6. The trial Court, on hearing learned counsels for parties and being satisfied with the reasons assigned therein, has allowed the said applications, which is questioned by the plaintiff in this petition. 7. Apparently, it is seen that the defendants have produced certain documents before the trial Court to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the said documents are not marked. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, defendant No.7 realised and filed the said applications to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking of those documents, which are already on record. However, no injustice or hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, if - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 the said applications are allowed, which are only filed for marking of the documents. 8. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed on the applications in IA.Nos.22 and 23 filed by defendant No.7 to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents, by the trial Court in allowing the same. However, since the matter is of the year 2015 and the same is now set-down for arguments, the trial Court shall expedite the proceedings notwithstanding the applications being allowed for marking of the documents on behalf of DW.2. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This writ petition is dismissed; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025 ii) The trial Court, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2015, shall dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17