- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12755 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA EDUCATION TRUST RAMAKRISHNA ROAD REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT 1982 SIR M.VISHVESHWARAIAH EXTENSION HOSAKOTE - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT. M.NARMADA. ALSO AT OLD MADRAS ROAD (NH-4) NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL HOSAKOTE - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ALSO AT 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS KANAKANAGAR HOSAKOTE - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PH-7975936122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 AND: SRI RCNC EDUCATION TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1982 SITUATED AT NO.649 SUNKALPET, HOSAKOTE - 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI C.RUDRARADHYA S/O LATE DODDAPATTADA DEVARU AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 24.03.2025 ON I.A.NO. 7 AND 8 IN O.S.NO. 1286/2022 [OLD NO. 520/2019] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, whereby, applications – I.A.No.7 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC and I.A.No.8 filed under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and to reopen the case, respectively, comes to be rejected, in O.S.No.1286/2022. 2. Heard Sri Mallikarjun N.K., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant, the respondent - plaintiff. The respondent - plaintiff and the respondent – defendant have an agreement with regard to the suit schedule property - agreement of lease. The respondent - plaintiff institutes a suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner – defendant from the suit schedule property. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter, but certain applications filed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 petitioner seeking recall for the purpose of further cross- examination of PW.1 and re-opening of the case from the stage of such examination. The concerned Court rejects the applications. The rejection of the applications has driven the petitioner to this Court and the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of rejection of applications is on the premise that this Court has in a particular writ petition directed deposit of entire arrears of rent or vacate the property. Learned counsel would submit that the permission to recall PW.1 by reopening was for the first time sought before the concerned Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions, contending that the writ petition is filed in W.P.No.8927/2024, by the petitioner, in which certain orders are passed and that the petitioner has not deposited the arrears of rent. Therefore, indulgence should not be shown at the hands of this Court to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and linked in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The respondent - plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner - defendant from the suit schedule property. In the said suit, two applications are filed, one seeking permission to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and another for re- opening of the case, from that stage. The concerned Court rejects the applications – I.A.Nos.7 and 8 by the following order: “Order on I.A.No.7 & 8 When the case was posted for arguments the defendant has filed I.A. under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and another I.A. U/s 151 of CPC seeking permission to recall the P.W-1 for the purpose of cross examination and to reopen the case. 2. In the annexed affidavits it is stated that the above suit is filed for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Since his counsel was not feeling well, he was unable to appear before the court on 1-2-2025 when the case was set down for cross examination. By considering his absence, cross examination of P.W-1 was taken as closed and the matter was posted for arguments. The non representation of the counsel is bonafide mistake and the same is not an intentional one. If the P.W-1 is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 recalled, they may put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, prays to allow the application. 3. Per contra, the plaintiff has filed objections to the above applications wherein they have denied the statement made by the defendant and further contended that in order to drag on the proceedings, the above applications were filed. Further, the defendant has not complied the orders of this court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in W.P.No.8927/2024 directing the defendant to deposit the entire arrears. But, the defendant failed to comply the same. Therefore, recalling of P.W-1 for cross examination does not arise. Hence, on other grounds prays to reject the applications with cost. 4. Based upon the above contentions of the plaintiff and the proposed defendant, following points arise for consideration of this court: 1. Whether the defendant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the applications? 2. What order? 5. Heard arguments. On due perusal of the records, the court findings on the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order for the following; REASONS 6. Point No.1:- The above suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession and recovery of rent of Rs.9.40.500/-. The defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement by denying suit claim made by the plaintiff. On the application filed by the plaintiff, this court has directed the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent within 3 months from the date of order dated 3-2-2024. But, till - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 this date the defendant has not complied the same. Against the said order, the defendant has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8927/2024. 7. As per the statement made by the plaintiff, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the defendant to deposit the entire arrears of rent or quit and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. But, till this date, the defendant has not complied the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka or this court. 8. Furthermore, though this court has granted sufficient opportunities, they remain absent and not cross examined the P.W-1 or lead their evidence on their behalf. As per arguments canvased by the counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant has not rendering the educational institution in the suit schedule property and they have transmitted the same to other educational institution. 9. Here in this case, the defendant except the statement made in the affidavit that due to ill-health of his counsel, they were not appear before the court for cross examination they have not stated any reasonable grounds. Further, in support of the same, they have not produced any material documents. When the defendant has failed to comply the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the orders of this court, they are not entitled to proceed with the matter. Hence, at this stage the defendant has not made out any reasonable grounds to allow the applications. Therefore, on the above reasons, point No.1 is answered in "Negative". 10. Point No.2 :- In view of the aforesaid findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.7 & 8 filed by the defendant U/o 18 Rule 17 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC are hereby rejected with cost of Rs.500/- each.” (Emphasis added) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 At paragraphs 7 and 9, which forms the major portion of the order, the observation of the concerned Court is that, this Court in Writ Petition No.8927/2024 has passed an order directing deposit of arrears of rent by the petitioner or quit and hand over the vacant possession of the property. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record the entire order sheet of the W.P.No.8927/2024. It reads as follows: “HT NARENDRA PRASAD 07/02/2025 At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list next week. M.I.ARUN 14/06/2024 Not Reached, List Next week M.I.ARUN 07/06/2024 Sri S.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent. Call on 14.06.2024. REGISTRAR (PROTOCOL AND HOSPITALITY) 01/04/2024 3 weeks for compliance” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 A perusal at the order sheet of the aforesaid writ petition, it would clearly indicate that there is no such order passed by the co-ordinate bench. It was on the face of it, a false submission made by the plaintiff before the concerned Court, which is been neatly brought out by the concerned Court and rejected the applications. 9. The entire order is premised on the submission of the plaintiff that this Court in the aforesaid writ petition has directed payment of arrears of rent or quitting and delivering the vacant possession of the property, while there is no such order. If the reason for rejection of the applications is based upon this erroneous premise and the submissions made by the respondent – plaintiff before the concerned Court, there cannot be a question of sustainability of the order that is passed on the aforesaid reasons. 10. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35721 WP No. 12755 of 2025 b. The impugned order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, stands quashed. c. Applications – I.A.Nos.7 and 8 shall merit consideration afresh, at the hands of the concerned Court, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13