- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 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. 4486 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. CHAYA NANJAPPA D/O P.N.NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT APARTMENT NO.203 BRIGADE SOLITAIRE ALANAHALLI, SIDHARTHA LAYOUT MYSURU – 570 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KEERTHI K., W/O LATE SENTHIL KUMAR NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARES R/AT NO.147/17-18 APARTMENT NO.312 BRIGADWE SOLITAIRE ALANAHALLI, SIDHARTHA LAYOUT MYSORE – 570 011 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.22 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 AND 23 IN O.S.NO.852/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU, ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THE PETITION GRANTING PERMISSION TO RE OPEN AND EXAMINE THE WITNESS IN THE LIST FURNISED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE I.A.s 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 seeking the following prayer: “a) Dated 17-01-2025 passed on I.A. No.22 and 23 in O.S.No.852/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Mysuru, ANNEXURE A and allow the petition granting permission to re open and examine the witness in the list furnished along with the documents by allowing the above I.A.s b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri B. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 3. The petitioner is the defendant and respondent, the plaintiff. The respondent – plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.852/2014 for specific performance. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner, the defendant, files applications – I.A.Nos.22 and 23 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC and Section 151 of the CPC, respectively, before the concerned Court seeking to reopen the case and permission to summon the witness to the scribe of a memorandum of understanding, which is in his possession and two others, who are the Managers of different banks, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is at variance with the agreement of sale, which is the subject matter of the suit for specific performance. 4. Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff submits that the agreement of sale dated 09.04.2013, is admitted and the consideration that passes through, is also admitted in the written statement. Therefore, there is no warrant for summoning of the scribe of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 memorandum of understanding, which is not the subject matter of the suit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refute the submissions, contending that the property belongs to the petitioner and the memorandum of understanding that preceded the agreement of sale was executed between the parties. The memorandum of understanding spoke about certain conditions to be fulfilled by both the parties and the shares in the property also to be equally divided between both the parties. The agreement of sale speaks otherwise, is his submission. Be that as it may. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would now, submit that if one opportunity is granted, the scribe of the memorandum of understanding would be examined or cross- examined as the case would be and undertakes that he would not drag the proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that since 2014, the suit for specific performance is pending before the concerned Court is itself a matter of concern. He - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 would also submit that the petitioner - defendant has dragged the issue for the last 10 years by filing unnecessary applications and one such application is this. The submission merits acceptance. 8. I.A.No.23 though seeks 3 witnesses to be summoned, learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict the prayer to that of summoning of the scribe of the memorandum of understanding and not the other 2 witnesses. The submission is placed on record. 9. Therefore, the issue now boils down to the summoning of only one witness, who is the scribe of the memorandum of understanding and not two other witnesses. 10. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose the suit itself within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed in-part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 b. The impugned order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, stands quashed. c. I.A.No.22 filed under XVI Rules 1 and 6 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking reopening of the case is allowed. d. I.A.No.23 filed under Section 151 of the CPC seeking summoning of the witnesses – the scribe and the Managers of the bank, is partly allowed. e. The petitioner – defendant is permitted to summon only the scribe and nobody else. f. Therefore, the concerned Court shall affix a date for the examination or cross-examination of the said scribe, as the case would be, by the parties and conclude the same on the said date. g. It is made clear that the concerned Court shall not grant any adjournment for the purpose of examination other than the date that is fixed by it. h. In the light of the fact that the suit is for specific performance and pending for the last 11 years, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality by directing the concerned Court to dispose the petition itself, within an outer limit of two months from the date of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37151 WP No. 4486 of 2025 conclusion of the examination / cross-examination of the scribe as directed hereinabove. i. It is made clear that the concerned Court shall not grant any time or shall not go beyond two months for disposal of the suit, from the date of examination or cross-examination of the scribe. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62