- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24913 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.DHARINI DEVI W/O N. SREENIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.76, PAVITHRA FARM HOUSE SUPRABHATA NAGAR THIGALARAPALYA BENGALURU – 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANIL KUMAR R.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI HANUMANTHARAJU S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ADAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, MAKALI POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 057. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI YATHISH M.H., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2025 IN O.S NO.1242/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. SENIOR Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 7.8.2025 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-B; DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2025 IN O.S NO.1242/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 7.8.2025 FILED BY HER UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC IN OS NO. 1242/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATIONS STATED SUPRA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 07-08-2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1242 of 2023 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar R, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Yatish M H, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant, respondent the plaintiff. A suit for specific performance is instituted in O.S.No.1242 of 2023 on an alleged sale agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 04-03-2022. The petitioner is said to have placed ex parte in the proceedings. The petitioner then files an application seeking recall of the ex parte order. The order was recalled in terms of an order dated 14-08-2024 and the matter is posted for filing of the written statement. Written statement of the defendant was not taken on record on the score of delay and the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 23-07-2025. On the said date, the evidence of the plaintiff was taken as closed, as the plaintiff contended that his evidence was already over and no further evidence was needed from his side. The matter was then advanced and the petitioner files two applications under Section 151 of the CPC one, seeking cross-examination of PW1, the plaintiff and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 other, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC seeking recall of the order dated 13-06-2025. The concerned Court rejects the application, rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the defendant has not led any evidence nor cross- examined the plaintiff. It cannot be a case of no cross-examination at all. He is facing a decree for specific performance and would cause great prejudice if he is not permitted to cross-examine even. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the petitioner has lost all opportunity before the concerned Court and therefore, it is a ruse to drag the proceedings. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. The order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 “Case is advance at the instance of the counsel for the defendant. Case called at 04-00 p.m. Plaintiff absent, counsel absent. Defendant absent, counsel present. Counsel for the defendant filed application Under Section 151 of CPC, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC along with written statement in one set. Heard and perused. On perusal of the records and order sheet dated 28.08.2023 the suit summons was being served to the defendant who remained absent and placed exparte. Thereafter the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence on 01.03.2024 the plaintiff led his evidence and the matter was posted for defendant evidence since no written statement, written statement taken as nil. Matter was posted for arguments on 14.08.2024, thereafter on 14.08.2024 the defendant appeared and filed application for setting aside exparte order which was came to be allowed the matter was posted for written statement on 30.09.2024, thereafter on 30.01.2024 later 24.01.2025. Thereafter on 12.03.2025, thereafter the matter was posted on 13.06.2025 and written statement of defendant taken as not filed. On 23.07.2025 counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he already lead evidence and no further evidence. Hence matter was posted for arguments and heard arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff since no written statement and evidence of the defendant arguments of the defendant taken as nil and matter was posted for judgment on 21.08.2025. At this juncture counsel for the defendant come up theses application seeking permission to file the written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 statement. It is pertaining to note that once a matter is posted for judgment no application shall be entertain and court is bound to pass the judgment in this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court and as well as superior court of the land made to clear in the judgment reported in (2013)14 SCC1, AIR1964 SCC993, (2009) 4 SCC page No.410 KSCR 2018(4) 2929ILR 2004 KAR 2215, 2019 SCC online Karnataka Page No.487. ILR 2017 Karnataka Page No.3557. In the above said all the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as well as superior court of the land and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka have held that once the trial concluded the matter is final heard no application shall be entertain. Therefore in view of the facts and circumstance of the case and judgment relied upon this court consider opinion that the application is not maintainable. Hence application filed Under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is hereby rejected. For judgment. Call on 21.08.2025.” The order that denies the petitioner cross-examination of the plaintiff is bereft of reasons, except for stating that the matter was posted for arguments on 14-08-24, for written statement on 30-09-24 and again, on 13-06-2025 and the written statement is not filed. The concerned Court cannot on the score of non-filing of the written statement deny the petitioner right to cross-examine. Right to cross-examination, whether - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 written statement is filed otherwise, is a right that cannot be taken away in any kind of trial. 7. May be that the applications were preferred at the stage when the matter was posted for its arguments, but the issue is, the petitioner has not been able to cross-examine the plaintiff throughout. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject petition, granting one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff-P.W.1 and any other witness that he would want to. As the order of the concerned Court warrants appropriate interference, the said order requires to be obliterated. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 07-08-2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru, on the applications filed in O.S.No.1242 of 2023 stands Quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43306 WP No. 24913 of 2025 (iii) Application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. The concerned Court is directed to fix a date for such cross-examination and shall see to it that it does not grant unnecessary adjournments, making it a ruse to drag the proceedings. (iv) It is made clear that this will be the last straw of opportunity to the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12