- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 24305 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. JAYAMA W/O LATE CHANDRANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANUPANAHALLI THANDA, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK -572137 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIVATSA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HALIBAI W/O. LATE CHANDRANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT DODAGONDANAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK 572132 2. BHAGYA C.R., D/O LATE CHANDRANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT ANUPANAHALLI THANDA, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK -572137 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 ON I.A.NOS.11 AND 12 IN O.S. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 NO.137/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. SIRA (ANNEXURE-AII) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.11 AND 12 FLED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC AND UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO. 137/2017 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.III) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST AND JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2025 on IA.Nos.11 and 12 in O.S.No.137/2017. 3. Petitioner/Plaintiff has initiated a suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents/defendants. The matter was listed for cross- examination of DW1 on 30.05.2023. Since the plaintiff did not cross-examine DW1, the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, on 16.02.2024, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application to reopen the case and recall - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 DW1, which application came to be allowed by the learned trial judge, and posted the matter on 14.03.2024. On which day again, the plaintiff sought time to cross examine DW1. The court accepting the request, granted time, by imposing a cost of Rs.200/- and posted the matter on 23.04.2024. It is seen that on this day also the plaintiff again sought time, and the trial Court posted the matter on 03.07.2024. On which day, the plaintiff partly cross examined DW1, and the matter was posted on 02.08.2024. 4. It is seen that the petitioner/plaintiff again sought time on 02.08.2024, which the trial Court rejected and noted the cross-examination of DW1 as nil and again posted the matter for arguments. On 16.10.2024, the plaintiff filed another application under Section 151 of CPC and another application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to reopen and recall DW1 for further cross-examination, which application came to be allowed by imposing further cost of Rs.350/-. The trial Court posted the matter on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 03.12.2024. Again on this day the plaintiff sought time. The matter was adjourned to 08.01.2025, on which day, instead of further cross examining the petitioner/plaintiff sought time once again, which again the trial Court granted by imposing cost of Rs.150/- and posted the matter on 12.02.2025. 5. It is seen that on 12.02.2025 again the petitioner/plaintiff sought time to further cross examine DW1. This time the Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff and noted once again the cross examination of DW1 as nil and listed the matter for arguments on 12.03.2025. Again on 12.03.2025, the petitioner/plaintiff sought time as he did not cross examine DW1 despite a trial court granting time. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 11.06.2025 for arguments. Instead of addressing the arguments, the plaintiff has come up with the applications filed on 19.06.2025 seeking to reopen the case and recall the witness DW1 for further cross-examination. In the affidavit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 annexed to the applications for reopening the case and recalling the witness- DW1. The reasons assigned are specifically mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, which states as under: "I further I submitted that, the defendant has examined in chief as DW-1. I have also cross examine the DW-1 in part, when the opportunity was given to me for cross examine the DW-1 on that day my counsel was engaged in other court, hence further cross examination of DW-2 was taken as NIL. Today I am going to further cross examine the DW-1. Hence kindly provide an opportunity to me to further cross examine the DW-1. Hence, I have filed this annexed application." 6. It is seen that this application dated 19.06.2025 is filed after more than 2 years from the date when the case was listed for cross examination of DW1 and when the plaintiff filed an application initially for the first time to recall DW1 for the purpose of cross examination. On a careful perusal of the order of the trial Court, this Court must appreciate the patience of the learned trial Judge for having granted 2 years' time despite granting several - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 adjournments as stated herein above and filing four applications by the plaintiff. 7. This very noting in the order sheet reflects the diligence of the plaintiff as well as the counsel in cross examining DW1. It is very appalling to see the conduct of the plaintiff in cross examination of DW1. Despite several adjournments having been granted by the learned trial judge, the same is not taken as a warning, but time and again applications were filed, time and again adjournments were sought. It was acceded to by the learned trial judge by granting opportunity one after the other. Even after imposing costs twice and by the impugned order again a cost of Rs.200/. It appears that the plaintiff is not really interested in conducting the cross examination but it appears he is only interested in prolonging and protracting the proceedings. Even in the affidavit filed in the present application to recall DW1 and cross examine him there is no proper cogent reason stated or satisfactory explanation or bonafide reason for the delay, except for stating that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52775 WP No. 24305 of 2025 the counsel was engaged in another Court, which is not a ground for seeking adjournment or recalling the witness. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot be a party to the carelessness and negligence of the plaintiff and I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial judge. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is dismissed with a further cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid on the next date of hearing. If the cost is not paid, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance to law. 2. The trial Court is at liberty to impose further costs if the plaintiff does not argue the matter on the next date of hearing. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2