- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100757 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. Y.L. SABLE S/O. LAXMAN SABLE, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. SABLE APARTMENT, MUMBAI-PUNE ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, KHOPOLI, TAL. KHALAPUR, DIST. RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA-410203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA Y.SABLE W/O. Y.L. SABLE, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR, M/S. VIKARAM ENTERPRISES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TAL. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 2. SRI. M/S. M.S.O.L. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BALDOTA BHAVAN, 117, MAHARSHI KARVEY MARG, MUMBAI AND BRANCH/CORPORATE OFFICE AT BALDOTA ENCLAVE, ABHIRAJ BALDOTA ROAD, HOSAPETE, TAL. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 3. SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR A. BALDOTA, AGE. YEARS, OCC. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. M.S.O.L. LTD., BALDOTA ENCLAVE, ABHIRAJ BALDOTA ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, TAL. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSAPETE ON I.A.NO.11 AND 12 IN O.S.NO.01/2019 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS AT I.A.NO.11 AND 12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY. III. AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved with the orders dated 20.01.2026 passed on I.A. Nos.11 and 12 in O.S. No.1/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hosapete (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short), the defendant No.4 is before this Court. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner herein who is defendant No.4 is none other than the husband of Plaintiff. The suit is filed for recovery of hire charges. When the suit is filed by filing the plaint, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed their written statement and defendant No. 4 has supported the case of the plaintiff. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for argument of the plaintiff, at that point of time, I.A. Nos.11 and 12 came to be filed by defendant No.4 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Trial Court to reopen the case from the stage of arguments and to recall DW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination. These applications came to be dismissed by way of impugned order dated 20.01.2026. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff's - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 counsel has cross-examined DW-1 at length covering the all contentions raised by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3. As such, again cross-examining DW-1 by defendant No.4 is not required. If the plaintiff having raised any claim against the defendant No.4 independently, then the question of cross- examination of DW-1 would arise. But defendant No.4 has completely admitted the case of the plaintiff as a witness to the plaintiff's case. As such, the applications deserve to be dismissed, according are dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.4 submits that the Court ought to have allowed him to cross-examine defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that, there was an averment regarding to an earlier suit which was decreed and regarding those averments, the defendant No.4 wants to cross-examine the other defendants. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the contentions that were raised by the petitioner/defendant No.4, has dismissed I.A. Nos.11 and 12. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and3/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that, the Trial Court had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 rightly considered the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant No.4 are sailing with each other and the plaintiff has already cross-examined defendant Nos.1 to 3 at length. The defendant No.4 has no independent claim against the defendant Nos.1 to 3. As such, cross-examining defendant Nos.1 to 3 is not required and the Trial Court had rightly considered and passed the orders. 6. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit is filed for recovery of hire charges against defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the company and defendant No.4 is the husband of the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 has no independent claim against defendant Nos.1 to 3. In that case, whatever are the reasons, there is no necessity for the defendant No.4 to cross-examine defendant Nos.1 to 3 when the plaintiff has no independent claim against defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is the lookout of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has already cross-examined defendant Nos.1 to 3 at length. In these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.11 and 12. This Court do not find any reason to interfere. Hence, the Court is passing the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2011 WP No. 100757 of 2026 ORDER (i) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI RH CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20