- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 26931 OF 2025 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31019 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP NO. 26931/2025 BETWEEN: MR.NITHIN GERALD SEQUEIRA S/O MR IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 25-14-840/6 VICTORIA NEAR VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 REP. BY GPA HOLDER MR NITHIN KUMAR S/O BHASKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 1-300-A GUDDE HOUSE MOODUSHEDDE, VAMANJOOR MANGALURU 575 028 … PETITIONER (BY SMT.MEDINI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.EDWARD PETER TAURO S/O LATE PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 2. IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA S/O LATE MR. VICTOR SEQUEIRA Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT "VICTORIA", SEQUIERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 3. SELMA SEQUEIRA W/O IVAN MARK SEQUIERIA AGED AABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SEQYUERUA COMPOUND VALENCIA MANGALURU 575 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDA RAMA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 (ANNEXURE A), PASSED ON IA NO. IV AND V IN O.S. NO.1086 OF 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND MFC, MANGALURU. IN WP NO. 31019/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA S/O LATE VICTOR SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. MRS SELMA SEQUEIRA W/O IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 'SEQUERIA COMPOUND', VALENCIA MANGALURU - 575 002 PETITIONER NO.2 IS REP. BY GPA HOLDER IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA I.E., PETITIONER NO.1. S/O LATE VICTOR SEQUEIRA ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 AND: 1. EDWARD PETER TAURO S/O LATE PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA, MANGALURU-575 002 2. NITHIN GERALD SEQUEIRA S/O IVAN MARK SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SEQUERIA COMPOUND VALENCIA, MANGALURU-575 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDA RAMA K.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI AND VII IN O.S. NO.1086/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU. D.K VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THESE PETITIONS, ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner in WP No.26931/2025 Smt. Medini Rao and learned counsel Sri. S. Rajashekar for petitioners in WP No.31019/2025 and learned counsel Sri.Ananda Rama K., for respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 2. The petitioners in these two cases are none other defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. 3. A suit in O.S.No.1086/2023 came to be filed by the respondent No.1. - Plaintiff before the Trial Court for ejectment. The matter was listed for recording of cross examination of P.W.1 on 13.09.2024, on which day, the defendants sought time to cross-examine P.W.1. The matter was posted thereafter and the applications came to be filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., and same came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 21.09.2024. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed an application for adjournment to cross-examine P.W.1 which was also rejected and the matter was posted to 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., which came to be allowed and further examined witness and got marked two documents and the matter was re-listed for cross-examination once again and the same came to be rejected by the trial Court and cross examination of P.W.1 is taken as NIL on behalf of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in subsequent dates. Thereafter, the defendant’s evidence was adduced and time was sought and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 the same was taken as NIL. The matter was posted for arguments. 4. In the mean time, defendant No.1 filed applications in I.A.Nos. 4 seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination and I.A.No.V seeking to re-open the case of PW.1. However, the Trial Court rejected the same, which is impugned in WP.No.25931/2025, whereas defendants 2 and 3 filed IA-6 seeking to re-call the stage and IA VII seeking to recall PW-1 for cross-examination on 31.19.2025. These two applications having heard by the Trial Court came to be rejected which is impugned by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the trial Court has not provided sufficient opportunity and has been adjourning the matter by granting two to three days and very short adjournments, thereby not providing the opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine P.W.1 and therefore, he filed an application and also for recalling of P.W.1 to cross-examine which subsequently came to be rejected by the trial Court. Hence, they contend that non-granting of the opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 cause injustice to the defendants and the trial Court proceeding with the matter without providing suitable opportunity is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned orders. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for plaintiff Sri.Ananda Rama K., submits that the defendants have been trying to prolong and protract the matter only with the intention to drag the proceeding from the date of filing of suit for ejectment. The defendants are the tenants ‘holding over’ and as such, are denying the right of the plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property of the original owners /land lords. Therefore, he contends that the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order by considering the fact that the defendants have protracted the proceedings and rejected the applications which do not call for interference. 7. On perusal of number of dates of adjournments taken and frequent listing of matter, it appears that the defendants have not cross-examined P.W.1. Nevertheless, once the defendants filed the written statement, it becomes their duty to cross-examine the witnesses and it cannot be said that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 trial Court is adjourning the matter by giving short dates and has not provided opportunity. Therefore, reasonable opportunity would have to be given to the defendants to defend their case by cross-examining P.W.1 and argue the matter. In the circumstances of the case on hand, this Court deems it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioners in both the cases i.e., defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 to cross-examine P.W.1 and to lead their evidence and subject themselves to cross- examination in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.4, 5, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.1086/2023 by C/C III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru is hereby, set aside. iii. The trial Court shall provide an opportunity to the petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to cross- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42190 WP No. 26931 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31019 of 2025 examine P.W.1 and thereafter to lead their evidence and subject themselves to cross-examination. iv. The trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on the parties seeking unnecessary adjournments. v. In view of this petition being allowed in favour of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, they shall pay a cost of Rs.2,500/- to the respondent/plaintiff, which is a condition precedent to proceed further in the matter. vi. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. vii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22