- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22328 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAGYA LATHA, W/O LAZAR JAIVEER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC:RTD.EMPLOYEE, R/O SADEPALYA, SIRAGATE, TUMAKURU – 572 106. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: THOMAS SATHYADAS, S/O LATE D.JOHN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC:RTD. EMPLOYEE OF V.I.S.P., R/O NO.H-28, TILED HOUSE, NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 REJECTING I.A.NO.11 AND I.A.NO.12 SEEKING TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO RECALL PW1 FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.900/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER I.A.NO.11 AND I.A.NO.12 RESPECTIVELY SEEKING TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO RECALL THE PW1 FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.900/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeing the following prayers: "1. Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order dated 29.10.2022 rejecting I.A.No.11 & I.A.No.12 seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall PW1 for the cross examination of the petitioner in O.S.No.900/2011 pending on the file of Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru produced as ANNEXURE-G to the writ petition. 2. Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction allowing the applications made by the petitioner under I.A.No.11 & I.A.No.12 respectively seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall the PW1 for the cross examination of the petitioner in O.S.No.900/2011 pending on the file of Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru. 3. Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems it proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice. 4. Award the cost of this proceeding." 2. Heard Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ravindranath M, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 3. The petitioner-defendant No.3 is before this Court on the score that the application seeking recall of PW.1 was denied on an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the petitioner would not drag the proceedings, he would have no objection for grant of one opportunity. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order: "REASONS 8. Point No.1: In this case, the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also for partition against the defendants. That the Matter is posted for defendant Side evidence. 9. Along with applications, applicant/plaintiff has filed sworn affidavits separately stating that, on that day he could not contact her counsel and give instructions to him to cross examine PW-1 as her husband had met with an accident of right tibia fracture and she had taken him to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore for 2nd surgery on 29-09-2022 and she was taking care of her husband in the said hospital. That the non cross examination of PW-I is bonafide and not intentional one. Hence it is just and necessary to reopen the case. Hence, she prays to allow the applications. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed detailed objections and contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 that, PW-1 is a senior citizen all along he has come for Bhadravathi the said fact has very much known by the 3rd defendant, only to harass the plaintiff the defendant No.3 has filed application after application. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the applications are not at all come to the aid of the defendant No.3 for cross examination of PW-1 that to the PW-1 has examined very long back. Hence, on all these grounds prays to dismiss the applications. 11. The court perused the documents available on record. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and also partition and separate possession, in the year 2011, There after the defendants have filed written statement and issues was framed. As per direction of high Court is a more than 11 years old case. The matter is posted for defendants side evidence on 31-10-2022. On 03-09-2022 the defendant No.2 and 3 have filed the IA under Sec. 151 of CPC and under order 18 R-17 R/W 151 of C.P.C to re-open the case and to recall P.W-1 for were allowed & cross examine PW-1. These applications recalled P.W-1 on 13-09-2022. This court had given the sufficient opportunity to the defendants have failed to cross-examine PW-1. When the case was posted for defendant evidence, at that time defendant No.3 counsel filed applications U/Sec.151 of C.P.C to re-open the case, 18 R- 17 R/W 151 of C.P.C to recall P.W-1 for cross examine PW-1. 12. Though the applications filed by the defendant No.3 at a belated stage. That the reasons stated by the defendant No.3 in her sworn affidavits though are not satisfactory. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that, defendants have filed many applications no proper reasons only dragging the present case. Hence, for the upshot reasons and discussions, this Court answers point No.1 in the Negative. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 13. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons and findings on Point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:- ORDER I.As. filed by the applicant/defendant No.3 I.A. U/Sec.151 of C.P.C, and IA U/००००. 18 R-17 R/W Sec.151 of C.P.C are hereby rejected. On cost of Rs.500/-." 5. Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if one opportunity is granted, he would complete the cross-examination on the very day that is fixed by the concerned Court. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would put up vehement opposition on the ground that the petitioner has been repeatedly given opportunity and the same is not utilized, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to complete the cross- examination by further cross-examination of PW.1 on the particular day fixed by the Court. 6. It is made clear that the concerned Court shall not grant even a day's adjournment on whatever score to cross- examine PW.1. Pursuant to the cross-examination, it is open to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025 the concerned Court to regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion. 7. Since the suit is of the year 2011, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality. The concerned Court shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within three months after the conclusion of the cross-examination of PW.1 as now ordered. Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115