- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42191 WP No. 27062 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.27062 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.G.MADHUSUDHAN S/O.LATE GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT KONSALE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK-571 428 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: V.K.JAGADEESHA S/O.LATE D.KARADIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED LECTURER R/AT VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK-573 131 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHRUTH B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2025 PASSED ON IA.NO.10 IN O.S.142/2022 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 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:42191 WP No. 27062 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.142/2022, being aggrieved by the order passed on IA.No.10 which is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner-defendant. During the pendency of the suit, an application came to be filed by the defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination, which came to be rejected by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- by the trial Court. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that PW.1, who was cross-examined in part on 10.03.2025. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for further cross-examination of PW.1 on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42191 WP No. 27062 of 2025 20.03.2025, his counsel was not keeping well and accordingly, the associate colleague sought time for further cross-examination of PW.1 which was rejected by the trial Court and subsequently, the cross-examination was taken as 'Nil'. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner-defendant that due to ill health of his counsel, the cross-examination could not be proceeded further. Hence, the defendant filed the said application to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. However, the trial Court not being satisfied with the explanation provided for delay and non cross-examination of PW.1, rejected the application by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that he would not have objection on the petition being allowed and the defendant being permitted to cross-examine PW.1, but defendant requires to be put to certain terms as he unnecessarily seeks adjournments with an intent to prolong and protract - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42191 WP No. 27062 of 2025 the proceedings. If such a directions and conditions are imposed, he would not have much objection in petition being allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and also for the reason that an opportunity be given to the defendant to cross- examine PW.1 by imposing further cost in addition to the cost imposed by the trial Court, this petition could be disposed off. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed on IA.No.10 in O.S.No.142/2022 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, is hereby set aside; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42191 WP No. 27062 of 2025 iii. Consequently, the petitioner-defendant is permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 subject to payment of further cost of Rs.2,500/- in addition to cost imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner/defendant is permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 on payment of cost herein mentioned. iv. The trial Court is at liberty to impose further cost for unnecessary adjournments, if any, taken by any of the parties. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB/NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23