- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 30192 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20898 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 23194 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 30192/2025: BETWEEN: 1. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O.LATE DEVARAJ JAIN D/O.JINNAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT RAJAGIRI HOUSE KANCHANA VILLAGE & POST VIA UPPINANGADY , PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 241 2. SMT.SARASWATHI W/O.PRABHAKARA ATHIKARI D/O.JINNAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT SHANTHINILAYA JAYANTHINAGARA 6TH CROSS KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE , KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 117 3. MRS.SUREKHA V.HEGDE D/O.LATE SUMANAJI AMMA W/O.VIJAY KUMAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT PADMAVARNA , POST KALLABETU GANTALKATTE MOODABIDRI TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 197 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 4. MRS.SUJETHA SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O.LATE SUMANJI AMMA W/O.SHIVAKUMAR R/AT KURPADY HOUSE, AJEKAR MARNE VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-567 120 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NAMIRAJA PANDI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O.JUNNAPPA HEGDE R/AT CHIKKABETTU SANUR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 2. SMT.VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O.LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 3. MRS.SHREESHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O.LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE KARAKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 4. MR.SHRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O.LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 5. MR SUNIL KUMAR AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SUMANAJI AMMA R/A SUBHODH MAHAL PADANGADY BELTHANGADY TALUK 574217 D K DISTRICT 6. MR SUDEER KUMAR S/O LATE SUMANAJI AMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT IRA ENCLAVE 3RD FLOOR OPP G V PAI HOSPITAL MOODABIDRI 574227 D K DISTRICT 7. MR ACHUTHA SHIVAPPA SHETTY AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE SHIVAPPA SHETTY R/AT SUJATHA NIVAS IRUVATHURU VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK 574114 UDUPI DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH AVIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. PRASANNA.V.R, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 67/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM, KARKALA AT ANNEXTURE-A . - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 IN WP NO. 20898/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE DEVARAJ JAIN D/O. JINNAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT RAJAGIRI HOUSE, KANCHANA VILLAGE AND POST, VIA UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK. D.K DISTRICT - 574 241. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR RANJITH KUMAR S/O DEVARAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT RAJAGIRI HOUSE, KANCHANA VILLAGE AND POST, VIA UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK- 574 241 D.K DISTRICT. 2. SMT. SARASWATHI, W/O. PRABHAKARA ATHIKARI D/O. JINNAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHINILAYA, JAYANTHINAGARA, 6TH CROSS, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 117, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER VIZ. MR CHANDRANATH ATHIKARY, S/O C. PRABHAKARA ATHIKARY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHINILAYA, JAYANTHINAGARA, 6TH CROSS, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 117 3. MRS. SUREKHA V HEGDE D/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 W/O VIJAY KUMAR HEGDE AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT PADMAVARNA, POST KALLABETTU GANTALKATTE, MOODABIDRI TALUK. 574 197, D.K DISTRICT 4. MRS. SUJETHA SHIVAKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA W/O. SHIVAKUMAR R/AT KURPADY HOUSE, AJEKAR MARNE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. 576 120, UDUPI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NAMIRAJA PANDI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O.JUNNAPPA HEGDE R/AT CHIKKABETTU SANUR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 2. SMT.VIJAYA AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, 574 114, UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. MRS. SHREESHA AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, 574 114, UDUPI DISTRICT. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 4. MR. SHRIKANTH AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHRIDHAR PANDI R/AT AIDHOKLU HOUSE IRVATHOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, 574 114, UDUPI DISTRICT. 5. MR. SUNIL KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SUMANAJI AMMA R/AT SUBHODH MAHAL, PADANGADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK. 574 217, D.K DISTRICT. 6. MR. SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT IRA ENCLAVE, 3RD FLOOR, OPP G.V PAI HOSPITAL MOODABIDRI, 574 227, D.K DISTRICT. 7. MR. ACHUTHA SHIVAPPA SHETTY AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA SHETTY R/AT SUJATHA NIVAS, IRUVATHURU VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, 574 114, UDUPI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.CHANRANATH AVIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R5 AND R6- NOTICE D/W V/O DTD 18/11/25 R2 TO R4- NOTICE H/S V/O DTD 18/11/25) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 19.06.2025, 20.06.2025 AND 27.06.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO.67/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM AT - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 KARKALA PRODUCED AT ANNX A AND B WHICH INCLUDES THE ORDER DTD 27/06/2025 PASSED IN IA NO.35 U/S 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONERS. IN WP NO. 23194/2025 BETWEEN: SRI NAMIRAJA PANDI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O.JUNNAPPA HEGDE R/AT CHIKKABETTU SANUR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 114 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O. LATE DEVARAJ JAIN R/AT RAJAGIRI HOUSE, POST KANCHANA VILLAGE VIA UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574101. 2. SMT. SARASWATHI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O. PRABHAKARA ATHIKARI D/O. JINNAPPA HEGDE R/AT SHANTHINILAYA, JAYANTHINAGARA, 6TH CROSS, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. 3. MRS. SUREKHA V HEGDE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA W/O. MR. VIJAYA KUMAR HEGDE R/AT PADMAVARNA, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 POST KALLABETTU GANTALKATTE, MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K- 574101. 4. MRS. SUJATHA SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. SHIVAKUMAR D/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA KARKALA TALUK, R/AT KURPADY HOUSE, AJEKAR MARNE VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. 5. SMT. VIJAYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE M. SHRIDHARA PANDI, IDOKLU HOUSE, IRVATHUR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, POST IRVATHUR, UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. 6. SMT. SHRISHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O. LATE M. SHRIDHARA PANDI, IDOKLU HOUSE, IRVATHUR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, POST IRVATHUR, UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. 7. SRI. SHRIKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. LATE M. SHRIDHARA PANDI, IDOKLU HOUSE, IRVATHUR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, POSTIRVATHUR, UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. 8. MR. SUNIL KUMAR S/O. SUMANAJI AMMA AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT SUBHDH MAHAL, PADANGADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT- 574101. 9. MR. SUDEER KUMAR - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 S/O. LATE SUMANAJI AMMA AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT IRA ENCLAVE, 3RD FLOOR, OPP G.V.PAI HOSPITAL MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT- 574101. 10. MR. ACHUTHA SHIVAPPA SHETTY AGED 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVAPPA SHETTY R/AT SUJATHA NIVAS, IRUVATHURU VILLAGE, KARKALLA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 574114. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE D/W V/O DTD 18/11/25) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA TO DISPOSE OF O.S NO. 67/2017 EXPEDITIOUSLY, WITHIN A TIME-FRAME OF THREE (3) MONTHS ANNX-A. THESE PETITIONS, ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER WP.Nos.30192/2025 and 20898/2025 are filed by the plaintiffs, whereas WP.No.23194/2025 is filed by defendant No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 2. The reliefs sought in the WP.No.30192/2025 are as follows: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.67/2017 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, at Annexure-A to the extent it directs plaintiffs to cross-examine D.W.1 prior to defendants No.2- 4.…………………………………………………… b) Direct the defendants No.2-4 to cross- examine DW.1 first, and thereafter grant the plaintiffs their opportunity to cross-examine DW.1. c) Grant an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order, pending the disposal of this writ petition. d) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The reliefs sought in WP.No.20898/2025 are as under: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders dated 19.06.2025, 20.06.2025 and 27.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.67/2017 by the court of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala produced at Annexure-A and B which includes the order dated 27.06.2025 passed in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 I.A.No.35 under Section 151 of CPC by the petitioners. b) Direct the trial Court to proceed with the suit from the stage after the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4, by permitting the petitioners to file their rejoinder and lead evidence, in accordance with law. c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 4. WP.No.23194/2025 is filed by defendant No.1 seeking a direction to the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.67/2017 expeditiously within a time frame of three months. 5. Learned counsel for plaintiffs confirms having taken out hand summons to defendant Nos.2 to 4, they have been served and unrepresented. 6. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 7. The sum and substance of the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession and other - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 consequential reliefs. The suit was filed in the year 2017. When the matter was at the stage of cross-examination of DW.1, the written statement came to be filed on the basis of an application in I.A.No.34 filed by defendants No.2 to 4 under Section 151 CPC, which was allowed with cost of Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter, the additional issues were framed and defendants No.2 to 4 were directed to pay the cost of Rs.7,000/- to defendant No.1 as the matter was posted for cross-examination of defendant No.1 and at that stage, the matter was adjourned for defendant Nos.2 to 4 to file the written statement. Thereafter, the trial Court, by imposing cost and after accepting the written statement, adjourned the matter further by its order dated 19.06.2025 for payment of cost and additional written statement of defendant No.2. By subsequent order dated 20.06.2025, defendant No.2 files additional written statement and so also defendant No.7. Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.35 came to be filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 19.06.2025, which was rejected on 27.06.2025. Thereafter, IA.No.36 came to be filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 seeking reopening the case of the plaintiff and recall PW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination by defendant Nos.2 to 4, which was allowed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing writ petitions in WP.Nos.30192/2025 and 20898/2025 questioning the orders passed by the trial Court. 8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials and the law and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contented by learned counsel that posting the matter for additional written statement of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is unheard and the same is not provided in any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore they ought not to have been permitted to file the written statement. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 9. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that an application in IA.No.35 came to be filed by the plaintiffs to recall the order dated 19.06.2025, which was rejected. However, again, the trial Court has erroneously failed to recall the order and arbitrarily rejected the application, thereby committed irregularity and illegality in not applying its mind. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contends that firstly, the trial Court has committed an error and illegality by accepting the written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4 without affording any opportunity to the plaintiffs to file a rejoinder or any response to the same. Instead, it has committed irregularity and illegality by providing an opportunity to defendant No.1 which is wrongly stated as defendant No.2 in the order sheet to file additional written statement, which is not acceptable. It is further contented that acceptance of additional written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 7 without any application or supporting affidavit is again illegal and untenable and the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 same could not have been accepted by the trial Court. It is further contented that there is no proper reasons provided as to why the trial Court has ordered filing of the additional written statement by the other co-defendants to the written statement of defendant Nos.2 and 4, when the defendant Nos.2 and 4 are in fact sailing along with defendant No.1. There are no justifiable reasons and exceptional circumstances provided by the learned trial Judge to have provided such an opportunity to the co- defendants to file an additional written statement to the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4. 10. It is also contented by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that by not providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file any statement or rejoinder to the written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4, the trial Court has not only committed an illegality but has also lead to miscarriage of justice to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are not provided any opportunity to resort or file rejoinder to the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 Therefore, he contends that the trial Court has committed a fundamental error and a procedural lapse in not providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file their statement or rejoinder and on the contrary, has provided opportunity to the other co-defendants to file additional written statement to the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4, which is contrary to the materials on record and the pleadings of the defendants themselves. Hence, the same causes severe miscarriage of justice and procedural lapse on the part of the trial Court. 11. It is also contented by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the learned trial Judge has made an uncalled for remark against the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are attempting to delay the proceedings until the death of defendant No.1 which is wholly irrelevant and speculative and against the judicial decorum. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court by not providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file a rejoinder or additional statement to that of the written statement filed by - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 defendant Nos.2 to 4 has in effect denied the right of the plaintiffs to rebut the case of defendant Nos.2 to 4, which is filed at a belated stage by accepting the written statement. These aspects were brought to the notice of the trial Court and sought for recalling of the order by filing a separate application in IA.No.35, which has been rejected by the trial Court without assigning any proper reason by the impugned order dated 27.06.2025. 12. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order requires to be set aside and an opportunity requires to be given to the plaintiffs to file the rejoinder and it cannot be accepted at any stretch of the provisions of law that a defendant can file an additional written statement to the written statement filed by the co-defendant. He contends that the defendants are all in collusion with each other and even if any statement is made accepting the version of some portion of the plaint averments per se would not amount to infer that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing with - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 the plaintiffs. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the writ petition. 13. In WP.No.30192/2025, it is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that an application in IA.No.36 under Order XVIII Rule 17 came to be filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 seeking reopening of the case of the plaintiffs and recall PW.2 for the purpose of his cross- examination by defendant Nos.2 to 4. Subsequent to filing of the written statement, an incidental order is passed that PW.2 is recalled for cross-examination after filing of report by the Court Commissioner with regard to cross- examination of PW.1. Further, a memo came to be filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, wherein the defendant Nos.2 to 4 sought a direction from the Court to the plaintiffs to cross- examine DW.1 first and after the conclusion of the cross- examination by the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 to 4 would cross-examine DW.1. Based on such a memo, an order came to be passed on 10.09.2025, whereby at paragraph No.16, the trial Court has held as under: - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 '16. The counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 to 4 have adjourned the cross- examination on the guise that other party has to cross-examine D.W.1 at the first instance. As per the order, it is the plaintiffs who has to first cross-examine. Even while passing orders on I.A.no.34, filed by the defendants No.2 to 4, this court has observed the fact that the 2nd defendant is sailing with the plaintiffs in claiming the share. Therefore, the allegation by the counsel for the plaintiffs who filed objections to the memo and submits that the defendants No.2 to 4, are sailing with the defendants No.1, who are claiming the shares as per the Jain Succession Act, does not hold any water. Therefore, this Court has considered direction, to give direction to the plaintiffs to cross- examine first followed by the cross-examination by defendants No.2 to 4. In this situation, when there was an observation by this court, the adjournments which is sought for by the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 4 and also the filing of written statement after lapse of 7 years of filing of the application at belated stage, nearly after 1½ months, is nothing but to avoid - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 the process of the court in proceeding with the case. It is also brought out by the counsel for the defendant No.1 that the cost of Rs.7,000/- as ordered by this Court, is not paid. As per order of this Court dated 17-06-2025, Ι.Α.No.34 filed by the defendants No.2 to 4 was allowed with cost of Rs.7,000/-which means that the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4 would be considered only subject to payment of cost. When the defendants No.2 to 4 have not complied with the order of this Court, the written statement cannot be considered at all, where the defendants No.2 to 4 would have no defence. In the interest of justice and equity, I.A.No.36 filed by the defendants No.2 to 4 is to be allowed, it would be only after cross- examination of D.W.1 first by the counsel for the plaintiffs and later by the counsel for the defendants No.2 to 4, subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,000/-'. 14. It is this order that is questioned by the plaintiffs in this petition where the trial Court has ordered the plaintiffs to cross examine DW.1 first and thereafter, defendant Nos.2 to 4 to cross examine DW.1. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that this order is illegal and unsustainable for the reason that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are in collusion with defendant No.1. Therefore, the question of plaintiffs cross examining DW.1 first would not arise. Since defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing with defendant No.1, they would have to cross- examine DW.1 first and an opportunity thereafter to be given to the plaintiffs so that they would know what is their case in view of the collusion between defendants No.2 to 4 and defendant No.1. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court with a direction to the plaintiffs to cross examine DW.1 prior to that of defendants No.2 to 4 is manifestly unjust, arbitrarily, illegal and perverse and therefore, it requires to be set aside. 16. Per contra, learned counsel Sri K.Chandranath Ariga appearing for defendant No.1 contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the trial - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 Court with regard to the orders dated 17.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and subsequent order dated 27.06.2025, whereby the trial Court rejected the application in I.A.No.35 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC to recall the earlier order dated 19.06.2025 and 20.06.2025. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that the written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4 came to be filed after 8 years, which was not objected to by the plaintiffs and the same came to be accepted. In fact, he contends that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have agreed to most of the averments made by the plaintiffs and have sought similar relief in their written statement. Whereas on the contrary, defendant No.1 has made different versions altogether and does not agree with most of the statements made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. 17. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that one Jinnappa Hegde died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 1957 and he would not - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 govern under the Hindu Succession Act and would be governed by the Jaina Succession Act, which is contrary to the statement pleaded by the plaintiffs and so also defendant Nos.2 to 4. Though defendant No.1 has stated that defendant Nos.2 to 4 would be entitled to 1/3rd share, however, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any share, that by itself would not mean defendant No.1 is sailing or colluding with defendants No.2 to 4. It is further contention of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that he has filed his written statement at the earliest point of time. The evidence of the plaintiffs and DW.1 is adduced. It is at the stage of cross examination of DW.1, the present orders are passed which is further delaying the suit proceedings causing severe miscarriage of justice solely for the reason that defendant No.1, is an eminent lawyer at Karkala, aged more than 92 years. Therefore, defendant No.1 is interested in expeditious disposal of the case and so also, defendant No.1 as DW.1 to be cross - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 examined by the plaintiffs and if required by the other defendants. 18. It is also contented by learned counsel for defendant No.1 that there is no illegality in the permission granted by the trial Court to defendant No.1 to file written statement or additional written statement to the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 for the reason that according to him, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing with the plaintiffs and the trial Court on keen observation, has extracted the observation in its order by holding that there is semblance of collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 and therefore, defendant No.1 was permitted to file additional written statement or statement to the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4. He further contends that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC contemplates filing of additional written statement to the written statement if any filed, if the Court thinks so fit at any time by providing certain time limit to do so. Under the circumstances, he contends that there is no illegality - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 or perversity in the order so passed by the trial Court, so also with regard to the costs that is imposed against defendant Nos.2 to 4, as it is due to their negligence and belated filing of the written statement, the proceedings were adjourned when DW.1 was to be cross examined by the plaintiffs. 19. There is another petition filed by defendant No.1 in WP.No.23194/2025, whereby defendant No.1 has sought for mandamus from this Court by directing the trial Court to dispose of the Original Suit in O.S.No.67/2017 expeditiously within a time frame of three months. 20. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has contended that in view of the fact that defendant No.1 is aged 92 years and the matter in a civil suit is pending from the year 2017, presently at the stage of cross- examination of DW.1 i.e. defendant No.1, the plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos.2 to 4 are making efforts with a clear intention to prolong and protract the proceedings to - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 see that defendant No.1 does not survive and live to give his evidence by way of cross-examination of the plaintiffs or other defendants. Under the circumstances, the said petition is filed for expeditious disposal of the original suit proceedings. 21. Learned counsel for plaintiffs does not agree with the contentions urged by learned counsel for defendant No.1 with regard to delay caused by the plaintiffs in protraction of the proceedings and seeks dismissal of the proceedings. It is his further contention that the delay has occurred in the suit due to several adjournments sought for by defendant No.1 and unnecessary protraction of the proceedings for filing amendment to the written statement and other additional statements that are filed are not at the behest of the plaintiffs. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 22. I have heard learned counsel for plaintiffs and learned counsels defendant Nos.1 and 7 and perused the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. 23. The fact remains that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession and other consequential reliefs. It is also the fact that at the time of cross-examination of DW.1, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed written statement which came to be accepted by the trial Court by imposing cost of Rs.7,000/- and a direction to deposit/pay the cost to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by this order contending that the cost ought to have been paid to the plaintiffs and opportunity ought to have been given to the plaintiffs to file statement or rejoinder to the written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4, whereas the trial Court on appreciation of the materials on record and the conduct of the parties and the pleadings, has arrived at conclusion that the cost to be paid to defendant No.1 and opportunity was given to defendant No.1 to file additional statement or written statement to that of the written statement filed by - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 defendant Nos.2 to 4. This was objected to by the plaintiffs by filing an application in IA.No.35 to recall the said order and permit the plaintiffs to file their rejoinder and statement, if any to the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. The trial Court in its impugned order dated 27.06.2025 has noted at para-9 as under: "9. It would be pertinent to note that the counsel for the plaintiffs neither appeared before this court, nor somebody was representing on behalf of the plaintiffs. Neither the plaintiffs filed objections to I.A.No.34 filed by defendants No.2 to 4, which was only opposed by the counsel for defendant No.1 submitting that the stage is for cross-examination of defendant No. 1. Now when the cost of Rs.7,000/- was imposed upon the defendants No.2 to 4 to be paid to the defendant No.1, plaintiffs counsel appeared before the court and submits that defendant No.1 has nothing to do with the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4. It was also argued by the counsel for the plaintiffs that defendants No.2 to 4 are sailing with the defendant No.1 and the cost cannot be ordered to be paid to the defendant No.1. It would be relevant to note that in the absence of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel, as submitted by defendants No.2 to 4, they - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 were under the impression that the matter would be settled between the parties. Therefore, somewhere it appeared that the defendants No.2 to 4 and the plaintiffs were sailing with each other. However on going through the written statement of the defendants No.2 to 4, this court could note that the defendants No.2 to 4 are claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property, as against the claim of the defendant No.1. Mere words stating that the suit has to be dismissed does not come in the way of the order to consider that the defendants No.2 to 4 are not sailing with the plaintiff. However after filing of the written statement, counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted the contradictions where the death of the father of the plaintiffs and defendants itself was disputed and that a new question arose regarding the application of the Act i.e., whether this court has to partition the property as per the Jains Act or as per the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore it appears that this claim of the defendants was to be opposed and the counsel for the defendant No.1 prayed for an opportunity to file the written statement." 24. The reasoning of the trial Court is elicited in the aforementioned paragraph as to why the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the cost to be paid to - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 defendant No.1 rather than the plaintiffs, so also, the reason as to why such an order is passed and has observed that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing with the plaintiffs on the basis of the written statement so filed by them. It is also a fact that filing of written statement by defendant Nos.2 to 4 after more than 8 years was not objected to by the plaintiffs. 25. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that it cannot recall its own order when the plaintiffs did not file any objection with regard to the application filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, who filed the statement at initial stage and has raised this plea after the orders are passed. The trial Court has also seen that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed written statement, similar to that of the pleadings of the plaintiffs and has sought for 1/3rd share along with that of the plaintiffs. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 neither sailing with the plaintiffs nor sailing with defendant Nos.2 to 4, as defendant No.1 has filed separate written statement - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 neither agreeing with that of the plaintiffs nor totally agreeing with that of defendant Nos.2 to 4, though in the prayer, it is stated by defendant No.1 that defendant Nos.2 to 4 would be entitled 1/3rd share, that by itself would not amount as to defendant No.1 sailing in favour and along with defendant Nos.2 to 4. 26. 26. The point that would arise for consideration at this stage would be: "Whether the trial Court has committed any error in rejecting the application in IA.No.35 filed by the plaintiffs and to permit them to file additional statement or rejoinder to the written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4?" 27. In this aspect, it would be relevant to extract the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VIII of CPC, which reads as under: "9. Subsequent pleadings.─No Pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set- off or counter-claim shall be presented except - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court things fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of note more than thirty days for presenting the same." 28. It is apparently clear from the aforesaid provisions that if the Court thinks fit, may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for not more than 30 days for presenting the same. Therefore, the discretion is vested with the trial Court, which is cognizant of the pleadings made by the parties before it as to what are the pleadings placed before the trial Court by the respective parties and who is sailing with whom and who is defending or contradicting whom. 29. In the present case on hand, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing along with the plaintiffs and therefore, having - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 contradicted the co-defendant i.e. defendant No.1 has rightly come to a conclusion to provide an opportunity to defendant No.1 to file his statement or additional written statement to that of the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. As the plaintiffs did not have any objection nor filed any objection to the written statement so filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, the question of providing opportunity to the plaintiffs did not arise. The same could not have been claimed after the orders were passed, where no objection was raised by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the opportunity given by the trial Court to defendant No.1 to file additional written statement is not illegal as the same is permissible as per Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, and also on the particular facts & circumstances of the present case. 30. Coming to the aspect of the cross-examination of DW.1, the trial Court has opined that the plaintiffs would have to cross-examine DW.1, defendant No.1 prior to that of defendant Nos.2 to 4. In this aspect, the Court - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 has come to a conclusion as to why the plaintiffs would have to cross-examine DW.1 ahead of defendant Nos.2 to 4. On the basis of the reasoning of the trial Court, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to differ from the sound finding arrived at by the trial Court, which is based on the materials available and placed by the parties. 31. It is also general rule and procedure that the plaintiffs require to cross-examine defendant No.1, DW.1, unless they show sufficient material that there is conflict of interest of the other defendants with co-defendants. However, the same has not been shown by the plaintiffs before the trial Court or even before this Court as even learned counsel during the course of arguments submits that it may be slightly true that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are sailing with plaintiffs to certain extent but, I fail to understand this logic and it is hard to accept the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs to direct defendant Nos.2 to 4 to cross-examine defendant No.1, - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 DW.1 first and thereafter, the plaintiffs to cross-examine DW.1. 32. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs as I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court in both the petitions. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petitions filed by the plaintiffs in WP.Nos.30192/2025 and 20898/2025 are dismissed; ii) The petition filed by defendant No.1 in WP.No.23194/2025 is allowed; iii) In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2017 and case is presently listed for cross-examination of DW.1, the trial Court shall dispose off the matter expeditiously for the reason that defendant No.1 is aged 92 years, who is already suffering from oldage ailments and bed ridden; - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 iv) The plaintiffs and the defendants are at liberty to advance the matter before the trial Court by making an application, which shall be allowed by the trial Court and an earlier date shall be given prior to Winter Vacation, 2025; v) Defendant Nos.2 to 4 shall cross-examine PW.1 on or before 19.12.2025; vi) Pursuant to which, the trial Court shall fix a date providing two weeks' time for the plaintiffs to cross-examine DW.1, who is aged 92 years first through the Court Commissioner, which application is already allowed by the trial Court and thereafter, the plaintiffs shall cross-examine defendant Nos.2 to 4; vii) The trial Court shall give preference to cross- examine DW.1, who is aged 92 years prior to any further witnesses, as they can be cross-examined later. This order is passed in view of the advance - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52371 WP No. 30192 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20898 of 2025 WP No. 23194 of 2025 age of defendant No.1 i.e. DW.1, who is aged 92 years; viii) This Court hopes that the plaintiffs and the defendants cooperate with the speedy trial primarily, the cross-examination of DW.1 and also the original suit proceedings; ix) The trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the original suit within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; x) It is made clear that if any party seeks unnecessary adjournments, the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RJ/LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12