- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106725 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUTTAPPA S/O. PARAPPA NAVI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SUTAGUNDI, TQ VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARJUN S/O. YAMANAPPA DALWAI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 330. 2. SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. SIDRAY NAVI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SUTAGUNDI, TQ VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, ON IA NO. 10 AND 11 IN OS NO. 16/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS ON IA NO. 10 AND 11 VIDE ANNEXURE E AND F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 THIS WRIT 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. Learned counsel Sri. M. C. Hukkeri, who has filed a caveat for respondent No.1, accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any such writ or direction to quash the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, on IA No. 10 and 11 in OS No. 16/2018 vide Annexure-H and allow the said applications on IA No. 10 and 11 vide Annexure E and F, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Pass such other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary under the facts circumstances of the case. 3. A suit in O.S.No.16/2018 having been filed by respondent No 1. evidence of the plaintiffs through PW1 and PW2 had been led, who had been cross- examined, and the matter was posted for defendants’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 evidence. It is at that stage that an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC had been filed seeking for recalling of PW1 and PW2 for further cross-examination. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that no satisfactory reasons had been provided by the petitioner and the matter had been adjourned on 3 earlier occasions at the request of the defendant, and being of the opinion that the application had been filed to delay the matter, the application came to be rejected. 4. Sir.M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel for respondent No.1, vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that three adjournments have been granted and cost was also imposed on the defendant, despite which cross-examination was not completed and thereafter the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. As such, he submits that the suit having been filed in the year 2018 is being delayed by the defendants. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 5. Heard Sri.Rahul S. Kuntoji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M. C. Hukkeri, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the papers. 6. It is seen from the records that PW1 had been cross- examined on earlier occasions and thereafter the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. When the defendant had led his evidence and when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW1, the concerned applications have been filed. Though initially at the time of cross-examination of PW1 the defendants sought for adjournment and costs were imposed, the fact remains that PW1 was fully cross- examined and in so far as PW2 and PW3 are concerned it was taken as ‘Nil’ and the matter posted for defendant’s evidence. I am of the considered opinion that, by cross-examining PW1 the petitioner has shown due diligence and subsequently, there being a change in the counsel it only gives credence to the submission of counsel for the petitioner that due - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 to the said change, cross-examination could not take place. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to further cross-examine PW1 and cross-examine PW2, since the suit is one for adverse possession, which will have a bearing on the property of the petitioner. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Certiorari is issued, the order dated 23.07.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.10 and 11 in O.S.No.16/2018 are set aside. iii. Consequently, I.A.Nos.10 and 11 filed in O.S.No.16/2018 are allowed. Further cross- examination of PW1 and PW2 is recalled. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11908 WP No. 106725 of 2025 iv. The petitioner is permitted to further cross- examine PW1 and cross-examine PW2 on the very next day, the matter is posted for the said stage. In the event of the petitioner not cross- examining PW1 and PW2 when kept present, this order would be rescinded and the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit thereof. v. The petitioner shall also make payment of cost of ₹2,000/- to the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2018 on the next day when the matter is posted for cross-examination. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34