- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 14728 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.N.SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KURGINABEDDI, KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER, BASAVARAJU, S/O K.N.SOMASHEKARAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMU.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.T.SOMASHEKHARAIAH S/O LATE K.S.THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT: MILK DAIRY SUPERVISOR, K.M.F.DAIRY, BYE PASS ROAD, ADJACENT TO ITI COLLEGE, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105. 2. K.N.MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 a. SMT. NALINI W/O LATE K.N.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, b. K.M.SANJAY S/O LATE K.N.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, c. K.M.ASHWINI D/O LATE K.N.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, d. K.M.MADHUSUDANA S/O LATE K.N.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2(a) TO 2(d) ARE R/AT: NO.787, 25TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYA PURAM, MYSORE CITY-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2(a), R2(b), R2(c) & R(d) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT & ARE EX-PARTE V/O DTD:22.10.2021) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2021 ON I.A.NO.9 PASSED IN O.S.NO.372/2012, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PIRIYAPATNA, AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 15.04.2021 on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.372/2012 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, at Periyapatna [hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order). By the Impugned Order, I.A.No.IX filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC is rejected. 2. No one appears for the respondents/defendants despite service. This Court by its order dated 31.08.2021 stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that Impugned Order suffers from infirmity. He submits that there was no delay in the application for recall of the witness, D.W.1. He submits that cross-examination of D.W.1 was undertaken in part just at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic on 07.03.2020, and thereafter there was a lockdown. Hence, it is contended that the parties - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 were intermittently appearing before the Court. Since the cross-examination of D.W.1 could not be completed, an application seeking additional cross-examination was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recall of D.W.1 for further cross-examination on 30.03.2021. He submits that although suit was filed in 2012, there was no delay in moving the application, since the evidence of the parties had just begun. 4. In addition, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto writ petition in In Re.Cognizance for Extension of Limitation1 and it is held that during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, provisions of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. Learned Counsel thus submits that in view thereof, it could not be said that there was delay in approaching the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further submits that he would only require one date for recall of the witnesses and if the petition is allowed, he would (2022) 3 SCC 117 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 examine D.W.1 on one date and that he will not take adjournments before the Trial Court. 5.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is taken on record and the plaintiff is bound by the submission of his counsel. 6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. In any event, given the pendency of the matter before this Court and the fact that the trial would have concluded in this period of four years, while the proceedings have been abeyance before this Court. 7. Concededly, the examination of D.W.1 was taking place during the time when the entire country was under COVID-19 Pandemic. The Supreme Court in the In Re.Cognizance case has held that the period of limitation shall not be applicable during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and that during this period, limitation shall be excluded in the following manner: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 “It is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial of quasi-judicial proceedings.” 8. In view of the order passed in In Re:Suo Moto case and what is stated above, this Court deems it apposite and in the interest of justice not to permit recall of D.W.1 for cross-examination on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to allow the petition and pass the following: ORDER (i) The matter shall be listed before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026. (ii) The Trial Court shall fix one date for cross- examination and the petitioner/plaintiff shall conclude the cross-examination on that date. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50865 WP No. 14728 of 2021 (iii) The parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournments before the Trial Court. (iv) The Trial Court shall endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: High Court of Karnataka