- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45065 WP No. 24211 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 24211 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LT DODDA PATALAPP AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 2. SRI MAHESH S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THARANHUNASE VILLGE POST, JALA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE - 560 057. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.) AND: SMT DEVAKI @ Y G BHARATHI D/O G GOVINDAPPA W/O N PRASAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/T NO 35, NAGASHETTY HALLI SANJAYANGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 094. …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 03.11.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J ORDER DATED 06.11.2021 IN O.S.NO.259/2014 PASSED BY SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO.9 UNDER 151 OF CPC Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45065 WP No. 24211 of 2021 FOR RECALL THE ORDER DATED 20.2.2021 TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.11.2021. passed on I.A.No.IX to XII in O.S.No.259 of 2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli vide Annexure-J. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. Petitioners herein have filed suit in O.S.No.259 of 2014 before the jurisdictional civil court at Devanahalli seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant has filed written statement in the said suit opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments, I.A.Nos.IX to XII were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. No objections were - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45065 WP No. 24211 of 2021 filed to the said applications by the defendant. However, the trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.No. IX to XII and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, though defendant has filed written statement in O.S.No.259 of 2014, she has not led any evidence on behalf of her. She has not cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 who were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. I.A.No.IX was filed under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 20.02.2021 under which the trial Court had observed that evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was closed. I.A.No.X was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to reopen the case from the stage of arguments to the stage of further evidence, I.A.No.XI was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to the witnesses and I.A.No. XII was filed under Section 151 of CPC to club O.S.No.259 of 2014 with O.S.No.957 of 2020 which is filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners in respect of the very same property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45065 WP No. 24211 of 2021 5. The trial Court has rejected I.A.No.IX to XII for the reason the said applications were filed at the stage of arguments and in the suit defendant had not led any evidence nor she had cross-examined the plaintiffs' witnesses. Merely for the reason that defendant has not led any evidence or that the defendant has not cross-examined plaintiffs' witness, the suit cannot be decreed and the plaintiffs are required to make out an independent case and they cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. Therefore, if the plaintiff intends to examine some more witnesses to prove their case, the Court cannot reject their prayer only for the reason that the defendant has not contested the suit. This approach of the trial Court is not justified and therefore the orders passed on I.A.Nos.IX to XI are unsustainable. I 6. Insofar as I.A.No.XII is concerned, a prayer is made in the said application to club O.S.No.259 of 2014 with O.S.No.957 of 2020. Though the parties to the suit and the property to the suits are common, O.S.No.259 of 2014 was at the stage of addressing final arguments when I.A.No.XII was filed and learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45065 WP No. 24211 of 2021 that O.S.No.957 of 2020 was at the stage of framing issues. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.XII filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to club O.S.No.259 of 2014 with O.S.No.957 of 2020. 7. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 06.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.IX to XI in O.S.No.259 of 2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli vide Annexure-J is set aside and consequently the prayer made in I.A.Nos.IX to XI is granted. (iii) The impugned dated 06.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in so far as it relates to rejecting I.A.No.XII, is confirmed. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14