- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103947 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. KAVITA W/O. SUBHASH TIWARI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: R/O. LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD-580 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUKESH S/O. HARIJIVANDAS PATADIA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ADESH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, NOW R/O. SANGINI VILAS KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI - 580 025. SMT. JANAKIBAI W/O. HANUMANPRASAD SHUKLA, DECEASED 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. SUNDARPRASAD HAJARE, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 R/O. GURUPRASAD COLONY, NEAR BUS STAND, BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. RAGHUNATH S/O. HANUMANPRASAD SHUKLA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. GURUPRASAD COLONY, NEAR BUS STAND, BELAGAVI-590 001. 4. ASHOK S/O. HANUMANPRASAD SHUKLA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. GURUPRASAD COLONY, NEAR BUS STAND, BELAGAVI-590 001. 5. SMT. RATNABAI D/O. HANUMANPRASAD SHUKLA, W/O. NANDU PANDEY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R5 DISPENSED WITH) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.13, 14 AND 15 IN O.S. NO.202/2017 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE G AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 5 is dispensed at the request of the petitioner as no relief is sought against them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.13, 14 and 15 in O.S. No.202/2017. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed the suit for declaration that sale transaction between defendant No.1 and other defendants is not binding on her and to execute the sale deed based on the agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, after recording of the evidence and at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed applications seeking permission to produce certified copy of the order dated 08.04.2010, to recall P.W.1 for further evidence and to recall the order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 dated 05.09.2024 and reopen the case for further evidence of plaintiff. Though the defendants did not object or contest the matter, the Trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, though there was no objection and no contest by the respondents, the Trial Court dismissed the applications mechanically without considering the urgency and requirement of production of document and for recalling the witness to adduce evidence. It is further contended that, the document which he seeks to produce is a public document and he intends to recall P.W.1 for further evidence to mark this document which he was unable to produce earlier. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant is present before the Court. He does not have much objection for the applications being allowed at a belated stage, as he is interested in disposal of the main - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 case expeditiously rather than the case being dragged on because of the delay in filing the applications and orders passed on the applications which are challenged before this court, which causes further delay. 6. Under the circumstances, since the document is a public document and the petitioner is only seeking to lead further evidence without causing any further delay, the short point that this Court finds appropriate is that there is no objection from the respondent and the applications could be allowed. 7. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is disposed of. ii. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025, passed on I.A.Nos.13, 14 and 15 in O.S.No.202/2017 is hereby set aside. iii. Consequently, the said applications are allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9126 WP No. 103947 of 2025 iv. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to produce the document dated 08.04.2010, P.W.1 is recalled for further evidence. The respondents/defendants shall cross-examine the petitioner on the particular document that is sought to be produced. v. In view of the fact that the original suit is of the year 2017, the Trial Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, if required by imposing cost for unnecessary delay. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49