- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32318 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. N SUDHEER S/O LATE NATARAJ S, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.607, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BEML 2ND STAGE, MYSORE CITY, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUSHMA N.P. D/O. LATE PRABHU SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.85, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, ALLANAHALLI BADAVANE, MYSORE CITY, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 022 …RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR (BY SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT IN EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAY KINDLY BE Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 PLEASED TO I. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08-10-2025 PASSED ON I.A NO XI AND I.A NO XII BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU IN M.C.NO.420/2022 BY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW BOTH I.A NO XI AND I.A NO XII FILED BY THIS PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.XI and XII in M.C.No.420/2022 dated 08.10.2025 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in whereby, the Family Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the C.P.C, seeking to reopen the case, in which, the petitioner has sought to furnish the witnesses list, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The husband has filed M.C.No.420/2022 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the wife had filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 M.C.No.719/2023 seeking divorce. Both the cases were clubbed together and common evidence was taken. After the evidence of the husband on 22.09.2025, the wife filed I.A.No.8 under Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking to reopen the case and also filed I.A.No.9 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C., seeking to recall RW.1 for further evidence and I.A.No.10 under Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C., to produce the documents along with the list. 4. Initially, the petitioner/husband has sought for time. Later on 23.09.2025, it is submitted that the husband has no objection to I.A.Nos.8 to 10. Hence, I.A.Nos.8 to 10 were allowed. The wife is further examined and cross examined fully and Ex.R.12 to Ex.R.35 were marked. Respondent's side evidence was closed and the case was posted for final arguments on 25.09.2025. When the matter was posted for final arguments on 25.09.2025, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.11 and 12 under Section 151 of the C.P.C., seeking to reopen the case under Order XVI Rule 1 of the C.P.C., by furnishing witnesses list to lead further evidence of the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by the order impugned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 While dismissing the same, the Family Court has observed that the evidence from the husband's side has already been concluded long back on 01.07.2025, on which date, the counsel for the husband himself got closed his side evidence. Furthermore, till the conclusion of evidence of RW.1 i.e, the wife, no attempt was made by the husband to examine these witnesses when the stage was already set down for evidence of witnesses if any, from his side which he has not availed. The Family Court has come to the conclusion that under such circumstances, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce the evidence of the witnesses in order to overcome the lacuna crept in their case during the course of the trial. The admissions or denial by the witnesses during their cross-examination will not automatically entitle the parties to examine some third persons as witnesses, which is not permissible under law. If such practice has to be allowed then there will not be any end to the trial. The Court had considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Bagai Construciton v. M/s. Gupta building Material Store1. 1 AIR 2013 SC 1849 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent has denied certain photographs which are marked as Ex.R.12 to Ex.R.35 in I.A.Nos.8 to 10, which was allowed on 23.09.2025. It is suggested that a gold ring is presented and the same is denied, as such, the petitioner/husband wants to call for the said witness for examination to elicit the fact, which is denied by the wife. It is submitted that unless until an opportunity is given, it prejudice the case of the petitioner/husband. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that when the matter is posted for final arguments and when RW.1 was cross examined at length, at this stage, question of reopening the case while examining a third party will not arise and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the applications. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. M.C.No.420/2022 is filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2022 and the wife has filed divorce petition in the year 2023. The Family Court had given enough opportunities to both the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 parties earlier when the request was made by the wife to reopen the case as stated in I.A Nos.8 to 10, as the husband had no objection, the Family Court had allowed the said applications on 23.09.2025 and posted the matter for final arguments on 25.09.2025. In I.A.Nos.11 and 12 filed by the petitioner/husband, he has not stated the purpose for filing the applications. These applications are absolutely silent. When an application is filed, it is the duty of the applicant to state the reasons for filing such an application as rightly observed by the learned Judge. After examination of witness and conclusion of evidence, to cover up whatever laches, lacuna in the evidence, every time when application is filed to reopen the case and to adduce further evidence is allowed, there is no end for the litigation. The Family Court had rightly considered and dismissed the applications. 8. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed in I.A.Nos.XI and XII in M.C.No.420/2022 dated 08.10.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43532 WP No. 32318 of 2025 (i) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4