- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.37092 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S JEENATH D/O.S.IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NEAR KALLADKA SCHOOL, GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE, P.O. KALLADKA - 574222 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M SUDHAKAR PAI.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT TAHIRA W/O. K.HAROON, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT PERIYADKA HOUSE, P.O. UPPINANGADY - 574 241 PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MOHAMMED IRFAN, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/ RESPONDENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DTD 29.11.2025 ON IA NO. XXIII TO XXV IN OS NO. 23/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANTWAL DK VIDE ANX-J AND ALLOW THE SAID I.AS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV in O.S. 23/2022 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada. 3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent/ defendant for the recovery of money in O.S. No.23/2022. The respondent/defendant filed her written statement. I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV came to be fled by the plaintiff at the stage when the matter is posted for arguments, after completion of evidence. I.A. No.XXIII is filed under Order - XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further chief-examination ; I.A. No.XXIV is filed under Order - VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 production of documents; and I.A. No.XXV is filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case of the plaintiff for the purpose of leading further chief-examination. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed all the three applications. Hence, petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff reiterating the averments made in the affidavits accompanying the application contends that the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV to recall and re-open the case of the plaintiff and for production of certain documents. It is contended that production of the said documents necessitated due to the questions put to the plaintiff during her cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant and the said documents would be necessary to elicit and establish the case of the plaintiff with regard to her earning capacity and also business conducted by him. It is contended that at the time when the plaintiff lead evidence, he was not in custody of the said documents and they were traced only one week prior to filing of the applications. Hence, there is delay in filing these applications. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow all the three applications by allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff opposes the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and contends that I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV were filed at the belated stage when the case is posted for arguments, after completion of evidence and no valid and proper reasons are forthcoming for non-production of the said documents at an earlier stage and infact the said applications were filed only to fill up the lacuna or omissions in the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the applications by the impugned order. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the present petition. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for recovery of money. The respondent/defendant filed the written statement. After completion of evidence, at the stage of arguments, I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV were filed to recall and re-open the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 the plaintiff and for production of certain documents In the affidavits accompanying the applications, it is stated that the production of the documents necessitated due to questions put to the plaintiff during her cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant. It is contended that the said documents were not in custody and possession of the plaintiff when she lead evidence and the said documents were traced only one week prior to filing of the applications and hence, there is delay in filing the applications. It is also contended that the said documents would be necessary to elicit and establish the case of the plaintiff with regard to her earning capacity and also business conducted by her. There is merit in the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. This Court is of the opinion that by allowing these three applications, it does not take away any admissions made by the plaintiff in the cross-examination and it also does not cause any injustice or hardship to the defendant. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to allow I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV. However, the petitioner/plaintiff would have to be subjected to payment of costs. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.23/2022 on I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. Nos.XXIII to XXV in the suit are allowed. iii) The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents and lead further evidence. iv) This Court has not expressed any opinion on proof or authenticity of the documents and the same shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law after considering the objections, if any filed by the respondent/defendant. v) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. vi) In view of the delay, petitioner/plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent/defendant on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52238 WP No. 37092 of 2025 vii) The trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50