- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 3860 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.SURESHA S/O SHIVANNA SHIVANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KAGGUNDI VILLAGE RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK – 571 107 MYSURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA P. D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK A REGIONAL RLURAL BANK (SPONSORED BY THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE ) ESTABLISHED UNDER THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACTS ACT 1976 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT MYSURU CITY AND INTER ALIA BRANCH AT PERIYAPATNA ONE SUCH KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK, PERIYAPATNA BRANCH PERIYAPATNA – 571 107 MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNEGOWDA S/O DODDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 3. K. M. SWAMYGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT KAGGUNDI VILLAGE RAVANDUR HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK – 571 107 MYSURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 21.02.2022, R2 AND R3 IS D/W; R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 MADE ON I.A.NO.II U/S 151 OF CPC TO RE- OPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER CHIEF EXAMINATION OF DW.1 AND I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W S.151 OF CPC TO RECALL THE DW1 FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION IN CHIEF, IN O.S.NO.192/2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA, ANNEXURE-A WHEREIN THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN HAVE BEEN REJECTED, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Subramanya P.D., the learned counsel for the petitioner, who appears online. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "i) Call for the records in O.S. No.192/2015 on the file of th Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna. ii) Set aside the Order dated 16.11.2021 made on I.A. No.II under S.151 of CPC to reopen the case for further chief examination of DW.1 and IA No.III filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. S.151 of CPC to recall the DW.1 for further examination in chief, in O.S. No.192/2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna (Annexure-A), wherein the applications filed by the petitioner herein have been rejected, being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law. iii) Allow the IA No.II filed under S. 151 of CPC to reopen the case for further chief examination of DW.1 dated 22.09.2021 and IA No.III filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC to recall the DW.1 for further examination in chief, dated 22.09.2021 in OS No.192/2015 on the file of the Civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna (Annexures-D & E), in the interest of justice and equity. iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. By means of the impugned order, the IA Nos. II and III filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.2 in the suit, have been rejected. IA No.II was filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) to re-open the case for further chief examination of the DW.1 and IA No.III was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC to recall the DW.1 for further examination in chief. 4. The trial Court has recorded that, the defendant No.2 was examined in chief as DW.1 on 03.08.2019. Thereafter on 09.02.2021, the case was adjourned for further chief examination of DW.1 to 23.03.2021. On 23.03.2021, the DW.1 absented himself from the Court and therefore, his examination in chief was taken as 'Nil'. Thereafter, the case was pending for cross-examination of DW.1, but he failed to appear before the Court even after grant of sufficient time and therefore, on 07.09.2021, the Court discarded the evidence of DW.1. The trial Court has noted that the case cannot be re-opened as a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 matter of course, as unnecessary adjournments are to be avoided to facilitate speedy disposal of cases. The suit is a simple suit for recovery of money and the plaintiff-Bank is a public Bank. Accordingly, the IAs were rejected with cost. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor agriculturist, who does not know the nuances of litigation and therefore, he could not appear on the dates. It is prayed that short time to be given, within which, the petitioner shall go and appear before the Court. 6. However, I find that the suit is of the year 2015 and, as noticed by the Court, it was in the year 2019 that, his examination in chief was recorded and thereafter for a period of two years, he did not appear. Even if the petitioner could not appear due to COVID Pandemic, he ought to have moved an appropriate application before the Court after lifting of the lock- down, which he did not. Moreover, a perusal of the order sheet reflects that on 13.07.2021, the learned counsel for the plaintiff was present, but neither the defendant nor his counsel was present. On 24.08.2021, both the counsel for the plaintiff and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38985 WP No. 3860 of 2022 the defendants were present. But, DW.1 was absent. The learned counsel for the defendants prayed for time for keeping the DW.1 present and time was granted as a last opportunity for cross-examination of DW.1. On 09.07.2021, both the counsel for the parties were present, but DW.1 was absent and therefore, the evidence of DW.1 was discarded. 7. Therefore, it is not as if the Court did not accord an adequate opportunity to the DW.1. It appears from the order impugned itself that the time was accorded for further examination in chief of DW.1, which he failed to avail of. When the matter was listed for cross-examination of DW.1, he failed to appear. 8. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find it is a fit case for interference and therefore, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28