- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 101627 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MACHINDRA S/O. NAGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHRAVAN S/O. NAGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O C/O SRI. S.S. VANJIRE, PLOT NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, OM NAGAR, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SMT. VIMAL W/O. NAGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SRI. BABU S/O. PARASHARAM KAMBLE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.20, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. SRI. AKSHAY S/O. PARASHARAM KAMBLE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. MISS ASHWINI S/O. PARASHARAM KAMBLE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 6. SRI. MARUTI S/O. NAGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SMT. LAXMI S/O. NARASIMHA PANDAV, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, PATIL GALLI, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SMT. BABY @ SHEETAL W/O. RAM KAMBLE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.209, OLD P.B. ROAD, PATIL GALLI, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. 9. SRI. GAJANAN S/O. KRISHNA KAMBLE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.3553, PATIL GALLI, OLD P.B. ROAD, KHASBAG, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R9 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 ON I.A.NO.22 IN O.S.NO.366/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.22 UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 7 OF C.P.CODE AS PRAYED FOR, FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the 6th defendant seeking to quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 on I.A.22 in O.S. No.366/2015 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, whereby the application filed by petitioner on I.A.22 came to be rejected. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was defendant No.6 in the original suit proceedings, that he had filed a writ petition No.101387/2024 before this Court aggrieved by the trial Court rejecting his application for not permitting him to lead further evidence. This Court, considering the plea made by the petitioner, allowed the petition only on the sole ground that one opportunity to be given to the petitioner to lead evidence by taking a lenient view. At the same time, the Court did not find any need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application considering the valuable rights of the litigants. The order came to be passed by this Court by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- against - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 the petitioner. This order in the writ petition stated supra came to be passed on 05.07.2024. Thereafter, when the matter went back to the trial court, at that stage, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application to recall himself-PW.1 to lead further evidence which as allowed by the trial Court. PW-1 adduced evidence in chief which went on till 11.09.2024 and thereafter the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 by the defendants before the trial Court. For some reason or the other, the defendants went on taking time and the matter was adjourned time and again by imposing cost on the defendants, the petitioner, who is defendant No.6. Subsequently, on 02.12.2024, PW.1 was partly cross-examined by other defendants. The evidence of defendant Nos.1 to 8 came to be taken as nil. Thereafter, on 18.12.2024 defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 filed application to recall PW.1 in I.A.21. Another application I.A.22 by defendant Nos.1 to 8 to set aside the order of 02.12.2024 and sought permission to lead their evidence. While considering these two applications, the trial Court allowed I.A.21 permitting the defendants to cross-examine PW.1 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 dismissed I.A.22 seeking permission to lead evidence by the defendants by recalling the order dated 02.12.2024. Thereafter, the matter came to be posted on 28.01.2025 whereby defendants 1 to 6 partly cross-examined PW.1 and further sought for time i.e. on 06.03.2025 and 01.04.2025. Same was granted on cost of Rs.200/- and 300/- respectively. Again since all the defendants sought time, the cross-examination of PW.1 was taken as nil for the 4th time on 25.04.2024 and the matter was posted for arguments of the plaintiff, at this stage, it was submitted across the bar that the defendants filed one more application I.A.23 to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination and it is submitted that the said application is also allowed and the defendants have been permitted to further cross-examine PW.1 which is listed on 22.07.2025. 3. The petitioner-defendant No.6 is aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.22, whereby the defendants filed an application seeking leave of the Court to adduce their evidence, is rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after allowing I.A.21, the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.22 as it was not his fault in the matter being prolonged for the reason that, immediately, after this court allowed the petition (supra) of the defendants, an application was filed by the plaintiff by leading further evidence which delayed the proceedings which was not at the instance of the defendants. Therefore, the petitioner not being permitted to lead evidence after cross-examination of PW.1, which opportunity has been denied to the petitioner, hence, this petition. 5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff contends that the defendants have been deliberately protracted the proceedings for one reason or the other. It is borne from the records and their own statements and the earlier order passed by this Court where the orders of the trial Court are upheld except for showing lenience that too by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/-. She also contends that, the petitioner be imposed heavy cost and he may be permitted to go on with the matter without causing further delay, as the original suit is of the year 2015. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 7. Apparently, the original suit is of the year 2015 which is filed for partition. The defendant is one of the family members. Pursuant to this Court allowing the earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking to cross-examine PW.1 and lead his evidence, apparently, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had moved an application to further recall PW.1 and lead further evidence-in-chief and thereafter the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1. It is apparently borne from records that defendant No.6 has not cross- examined after the matter was posted for cross-examination on several dates of hearing and the cross-examination was taken as nil. Apparently, it is not in dispute that again one more application is filed by the petitioner to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. It is also borne from the records that the cross-examination of PW.1 is taken as nil. The matter has not been posted for evidence of defendants no opportunity was given for the evidence of the petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 which ought to have been given by the trial court by granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on his behalf. It is seen that the order in the earlier writ petition was passed on 05.07.2021 whereby three months time was granted but due to interjection by the plaintiff filing an application to lead further evidence, the time period got prolonged therefore that cannot be blamed on the defendant-petitioner. Nevertheless subsequent thereto, after PW.1 had adduced evidence-in-chief, it is apparently seen that defendants have continuously taken time and prolonged time deliberately for one reason or the other. 8. In view of the fact that I.A.23 is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 which is allowed to cross-examine PW.1, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to permit PW.1 to be cross-examined in view of allowing I.A.23 and thereafter list the matter for evidence of defendants and one opportunity shall be given to the defendants to adduce evidence, post which, the plaintiff shall cross-examine the defendants. Since the petitioner submits that the petitioner- defendant No.6 had adduced evidence in the form of DW.1, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 the trial Court may accept the same and permit the defendant No.6 to adduce his evidence post the cross- examination of PW.1 by providing one opportunity and thereafter lead any further witness evidence, if required, if so advised. The entire process shall be completed by the defendant No.6 by cross-examining PW.1 and leading his evidence expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. This petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed on I.A.22 in O.S. No.366/2015 by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi is hereby set aside. The petitioner-defendant No.6 is permitted to adduce his evidence post the cross-examination of PW.1. Since the petitioner had delayed in adducing the evidence and cross- examining PW.1, the application-I.A.22 is allowed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9006 WP No. 101627 of 2025 subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which shall be a condition precedent to proceed further in the case. iii. The trial Court is at liberty to impose further cost if there is deliberate protraction/prolonging the proceedings. No opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the matter. The petitioner shall go on with the matter without seeking any adjournment. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Kmv CT-MCK