- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1393 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: MILK VENDING BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPP. VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE, OPP. BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064 2. SRI.KUMAR.A., SON OF LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPP. VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE, OPP. BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. K. KANTHARAJU.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 AND: 1. SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF RATHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANGALORE MANGALORE ROAD, OPPOSITE O PRUTHVI TALKIES, HASSAN 573 201. 2. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE CIRCLE, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMYTEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DAMODAR N., ADV.) THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6014/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant Nos.1(b) and (c) in O.S.No.6014/1997 is directed against the impugned order dated 14.01.2026 passed on I.A.Nos.24 and 25 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 whereby the said applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Trial Court, which allowed the application, I.A.No.20 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners – defendants, in the first instance, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 dismissing suit filed by the plaintiffs, aggrieved by which, the 1st respondent – plaintiff No.1 approached this Court in R.F.A.No.2523/2007, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and also directing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 conducting of DNA test in accordance with law. The operative portion of the judgment passed in RFA No.2523/2007 is as under:- “ 75. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6014/1997 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. (iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint. (v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. (vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. (vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff 85 Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling. (viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997. (ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given. (x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025. 4. In pursuance of the said judgment of this Court, the plaintiff led further evidence by examining PW.6, who was cross- examined by the petitioners-defendants and thereafter, when the Trial Court wanted to take necessary steps to conduct necessary steps as directed by this Court, the petitioners filed an application, I.A.No.17 to recall PW.1, Smt. Jayalakshmamma for further cross- examination, which was opposed by the plaintiffs and culminated in an order dated 03.12.2025, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the said application, I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 W.P.No.39171/2025, which was dismissed by this Court by confirming the order of the Trial Court as hereunder: This petition by defendants 1(b) and 1(c) in O.S.No.6014/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC to recall PW-1 – Smt.Jayalakshmamma for further cross examination by the petitioners was rejected by the trial court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners – defendants, in the first instance, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 dismissing suit filed by the plaintiffs, aggrieved by which, the 1st respondent – plaintiff No.1 approached this Court in R.F.A.No.2523/2007, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and also directing conducting of DNA test in accordance with law. The operative portion of the judgment passed in RFA No.2523/2007 is as under:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 “ 75. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6014/1997 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. (iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint. (v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. (vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. (vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff 85 Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling. (viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997. (ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given. (x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, the plaintiffs led further evidence by way of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 evidence of PW-6 who was cross-examined by the petitioners-defendants. Thereafter, when the trial court wanted to take necessary steps to conduct DNA test as directed by this Court, the petitioners moved the instant application I.A.No.17 to recall PW-1 – Smt.Jayalakshmamma for further cross-examination. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who interalia contended that PW-1 had been examined and cross- examined in the year 2006, about 19 years back, much prior to the dismissal of the suit and the order of remand and as such, in the absence of necessary averments made in the Affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.No.17, no valid or sufficient grounds had been made out by the petitioners to seek recall of PW-1. By the impugned order, the trial court proceeded to reject I.A.No.17 by holding as under:- “ORDER ON I.A. No.17 Advocate for defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) filed this IA under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC with a prayer to recall PW1 Smt. Jayalakshmamma and permit defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) for further cross-examination. 2. In the affidavit supporting the IA it is contended that plaintiffs filed this suit for partition which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2017, which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2523/2007. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh trial. The Hon'ble High Court recorded finding on point No.3 with regard to relationship, joint family, succession and execution of Will Ex.P4 and said Will has to be proved by plaintiffs by examining attesting witnesses. The Hon'ble High Court while considering point No.3 has directed the Trial Court to consider the material on record and allow plaintiffs & defendants to adduce their further evidence. Plaintiffs have to lead further evidence by producing material evidence in respect of relationship, parenthood, joint family status, joint family member and joint possession. If the IA is allowed, no injury or hardship will be caused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 to the other side; on the contrary, defendants would be put to hardship & injury. Hence prayed to allow the IA. 3. Advocate for plaintiffs filed objections to the IA contending that PW1 Smt. Jayalakshmamma is cross- examined on 13.06.2006. Thereafter, defendants never sought any recall or further cross-examination at any point of time during last 19 years. This application is filed only after the defendants obstructed DNA collection on 19.11.2025. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.2523/2007 dated 13.06.2025 and WP No.30888/2025 dated 27.10.2025 did not direct or even suggest that PW1 be recalled for further cross- examination. Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is very limited in scope and cannot be invoked to reopen an entire cross- examination or to fill up the lacuna. On 17.11.2025 this Court in faithful compliance with the directions of The Hon'ble High Court directed plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.1(b) to appear on 19.11.2025 for DNA sample collection and issued hand summons to laboratory technicians. On 19.11.2025 technicians of the laboratory appeared in the Court. But, defendant No.1(b) deliberately remained absent and his counsel openly refused to produce him in the Court on the ground that this Court has no power to issue such directions. Only after obstructing DNA procedure, defendants hurriedly filed this IA on 29.11.2025 which shows that this is a desperate & dishonest attempt to derail DNA test ordered by The Hon'ble High Court. 3(a). The Hon'ble High Court directed this Court to dispose the matter within time bound and further directed that no adjournments or delays will be tolerated. After remand of this case, defendants are permitted to file additional Written Statement. Thereafter, PW6 is examined in the month of July-2025. As per the order of The Hon'ble High Court in WP No.30888/2025 dated 27.10.2025 defendants are permitted to amend Written Statement to the limited extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) & 2(e). The Hon'ble High Court permitted further evidence only in respect of two paragraphs permitted to be amended and conducting DNA test which is the sole purpose of the remand. The Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter only for the purpose of fresh adjudication in view of allowing IA under Order 26 Rule 10 for DNA test. Therefore, this IA is completely outside the scope of remand. Now, defendants cannot expand, enlarge or manipulate the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 limited liberty granted in an attempt of violating the binding directions. Hence, prayed to reject the IA. 4. Heard arguments. Perused the material on record. 5.Now the points that arise for my consideration are:- 1.Whether IA No.17 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed? 2.What Order? 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following: - R E A S O N S 7. POINT No.1 : Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendant claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant Anjanappa are children of Ammayamma. Defendant denied relationship with plaintiffs. After trial, this Court dismissed the suit, which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2523/2007. On 13.06.2025 The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for disposal within time limit of one year. The operative portion of judgment of The Hon'ble High Court reads thus: O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.6014/1997 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 (iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint. (v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. (vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. (vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling. (viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997. (ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given. (x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025. Thereafter, plaintiffs amended the plaint. Defendants filed additional Written Statement. Additional issues have been framed. Plaintiffs led further evidence by examining Smt. Maheshwari as PW6, who is fully cross- examined by defendants. Then, advocate for defendants filed IA 14 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of Written Statement, which came to be rejected by this Court, which was challenged before the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025. The Hon'ble High Court partly allowed said Writ Petition. The operative portion of the order of Hon'ble High Court reads thus: ORDER The petition is allowed in part. 2. The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.6014/1997 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed insofar as only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). 3. Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. However, the plaintiffs or the defendants shall complete their evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) shall be subject to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling as opined by this Court in Regular First Appeal without any further delay. 5. It is made clear that any unnecessary adjournments and delay caused by either of the parties shall be viewed seriously and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either of the parties. In view of the order of Hon'ble High Court defendants amended their Written Statement. Advocate for plaintiffs submitted no further evidence. Hence, the matter is posted for defendants’ evidence. At this stage, advocate for defendants filed this IA. On 13.06.2006 PW1 Smt. Jayalakshmamma is examined and she is cross- examined by defendants. It is about 19 years have been lapsed. Now, advocate for defendants come up with this IA. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the ruling reported in (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 (Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors.), has held thus: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 11. The respondent filed the application under Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the court to make orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The basic purpose of Rule 17 is to enable the court to clarify any position or doubt, and the court may, either suo moto or on the request of any party, recall any witness at any stage in that regard. This power can be exercised at any stage of the suit. No doubt, once the court recalls the witness for the purpose of any such clarification, the court may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the witness for the purpose of clarification required or permitted by the court. The power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any further. The said power cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness. It cannot also be used for the purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence. “No prejudice is caused to either party” is also not a permissible ground to invoke Rule 17. No doubt, it is a discretionary power of the court but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to invoke the provision, it should also see that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted on that ground. 12. In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar V. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, this principle has been summarized at paras 25, 28 and 29: 25.In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. 28.The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re- examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. After remand of this matter, both parties are provided with ample opportunity to lead further evidence. Accordingly, plaintiffs examined PW6, who is fully cross- examined and on 25.07.2025 both advocates submitted as evidence closed. Thereafter, when this Court directed the parties to make themselves available - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 before the Court to draw blood samples for DNA test in view of the order of Hon'ble High Court, advocate for defendants went on filing applications after applications and challenging the orders on the said IAs before the Hon'ble High Court. It is not the case of defendants that they are not provided with opportunity of cross- examining PW1 or leading further defence evidence. 9. As per the order of The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025, after amendment of Written Statement, advocate for plaintiffs submitted he has no further evidence and the case is posted for defendants’ evidence. Now, defendants are at liberty to lead evidence to prove their amended Written Statement. Instead of leading their evidence on amended pleadings, they have filed this IA to recall PW1 who is examined about 19 years ago. 10. In view of directions of Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2523/2007 and W.P. No.30888/2025 as stated above, on 17.11.2025 this Court directed plaintiffs and defendant No.1(b) to be present before the Court on 19.11.2025 to give blood samples for DNA test. Plaintiffs were present before the Court, but defendant No.1(b) not present and learned advocate for defendant No.1(b) submitted that this Court has no discretion / power to direct the parties to keep present. Hence, he did not keep his party present before the Court to give blood samples for DNA test in view of the orders of Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter when the case is posted for further defendants' evidence, advocate for defendants filed this IA. 11. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and in view of the directions of The Hon'ble High Court as stated above, this Court do not find any good grounds to recall PW1 who is examined about 19 years ago. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 12. POINT No.2 : In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : -10 O R D E R I.A. No.17 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC is rejected.” - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 4. As can be seen from the remand order passed by this Court in RFA No.2523/2007 and the impugned order passed by the trial court, after remand, the plaintiffs adduced further evidence of PW-6 who was cross- examined by the petitioners – defendants and neither valid nor sufficient grounds had been made out by the petitioners to seek recall of PW-1 after lapse of 19 years. In this context, it is necessary to extract the averments made by the petitioners in the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.17, which are as hereunder:- “ 2. I State that the above suit was set-down for plaintiffs evidence on 28.11.2025. The above suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court dated: 22.09.2007. the unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. During the pendency of the RFA No.2523/2007, the plaintiffs have filed two applications viz., amendment of plaint under order VI Rule 17 CPC and also application for appointment of Commissioner for Scientists Investigation as required under order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC. I state that after hearing the appeal in RFA No.2523/2007 and also considering the issues framed by the Hon’ble Court, the Hon’ble High Court has clearly recorded a finding on point No.3 with regard to relationship, joint family succession and execution of will at Ex.P4 and the said will has to be proved by the plaintiffs by examining the attested witnesses, the mater requires for reconsideration specifically at para 72 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Court of Karnataka in RFA No.2523/2007. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while remained the First Appeal before the Hon’ble Court for reconsideration on point No.3, has specifically directed the Hon’ble court to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendants- ourselves to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs have to lead further evidence by producing the material evidence on record in respect of proving the relationship of parenthood, joint family status, joint - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 family status, joint family member an joint possession of plaintiffs and my father, Similarly, we obligated to further cross examine both the plaintiffs and their witnesses. In the circumstances, I have filed the accompanying application which may kindly be allowed as prayed for. If the application is allowed and the stage of the case is recalled and direct the 1st plaintiff- Jayalakshmamma to be subjected for further cross- examination as indicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on point NO.3 in RFA No.2523/2007 dated: 13.06.2025 and we may be permitted to cross-examine PW-1-1st plaintiff- Jayalakshmamma, no injury or hardship would be caused to the other side. Whereas, it’s decline, would subject us to irretrievable injury and hardship as the suit schedule property is the immovable property over which we have acquired substantial right, title interest and lawful possession and enjoyment. Therefore, it is prayed that the accompanying application may kindly be allowed as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. As is clear from the averments made in the Affidavit filed in support of the application, except referring to the earlier proceedings including remand and the liberty granted in favour of the parties to adduce further evidence, there is absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds are made out by the petitioners to seek recalling of PW-1 after lapse of 19 years. It is also pertinent to note that while this Court remitting the matter back to the trial court by permitting the parties to adduce further evidence and directing conducting of DNA test, no request for permission to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination was made by the petitioners. These facts and circumstances have been taken note of by the trial court, which took into account that the suit was of the year 1997 and after lapse of almost 29 years, the petitioners would not be entitled to any indulgence by seeking recalling of PW-1 for further cross-examination - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 without assigning any reasons, especially when this Court has directed expeditious disposal of the suit within a period of one year by directing both the parties to co-operate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the trial court was fully justified in declining to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination as sought for by the petitioner, by passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor the same said to have occasioned any prejudice or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.” 5. Subsequently, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the instant application I.A.No.20 under Order VI Rule XVI CPC, for a direction to the Police Authorities to secure and produce defendant No.1(b) for the purpose of DNA test and for other reliefs. So also, petitioners-defendants have filed I.A.Nos.24 and 25 under Section - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 151 CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW.6 for further cross-examination. The said applications having been opposed by the respective parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.21 and rejecting I.A.Nos.24 and 25 by holding as under: “ORDER ON I.A. No.20 Advocate for plaintiffs filed this IA under Order 6 Rule 16 Section 151 CPC with a prayer to issue direction to the SHO, Yalahanka Police Station, Bengaluru, to render necessary police assistance and to secure & produce defendant No.1(b) before this Court as on the date and time fixed by this Court for collection of blood samples for avuncular DNA profiling. Further, to direct the authorized technicians of ‘DNA Forensic Laboratory Private Limited’ at ‘Advanced GenCare’, No.2948, MKK Road, near Metro Pillar No.218, Rajaji Nagara, Bengaluru, to collect the blood sample of defendant No.1(b) and plaintiffs before the Court for conducting avuncular DNA profiling, as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.2523/2007 and W.P. No.30888/2025. 2. In the affidavit supporting the IA it is contended that in this case there is a serious dispute regarding relationship between the parties. Hence, The Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 13.06.2025 in R.F.A. No.2523/2007 has pleased to set aside the judgment & decree and remand the matter with specific and binding - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 direction to this Court to secure the presence of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.1(b) and obtain the blood samples for conducting avuncular DNA profiling. Further, The Hon'ble High Court once again in W.P. No.30888/2025 vide order dated 27.10.2025 reiterated the obligation of the Trial Court to give effect to the directions issued by The Hon'ble High Court in R.F.A. No.2523/2007. Pursuant to those mandatory directions, this Court has issued directions to plaintiffs & defendant No.1(b) to be present in the Court on 19.11.2025 for collection of blood samples and this Court issued hand summons to the technicians of the lab. Accordingly, the technicians of DNA laboratory were present before the Court. Plaintiffs were also present. But, defendant No.1(b) deliberately remained absent and his counsel submitted that the Court has no power to direct the defendant 1(b) to appear before the Court and defendant No.1(b) was intentionally absent before the Court which resulted in frustration of DNA testing process. 2(a). The DNA test is central to the adjudication of this case. The Hon'ble High Court expressly directed that DNA test shall be conducted without any delay. Defendant No.1(b) is refusing to appear before the Court and failing to submit his blood samples which is nothing but disobedience of the order of the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Dutt Tiwari vs. Rohit Shekhar & Others and The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Subhash Singh vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, held that in implementing the order of the Court, police assistance can be taken by adopting reasonable measures for securing the compliance of the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 order. Hence, it is necessary to invoke the inherent powers of the Court in implementing its order. If IA is not allowed, it would cause great hardship to the plaintiffs besides creating cloud on the powers of the Court. To bring defendants to judicial discipline and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary to allow the IA. Hence, prayed to allow the I.A. 3. Advocate for defendant No.1(b) filed objections to the IA contending that Order 6 Rule 16 CPC speaks regarding striking of pleadings and this IA do not come within the ambit of Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. As per Rule 23 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, present IA is not maintainable for seeking two reliefs in single IA. The statements made in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the affidavit supporting the IA are denied. Plaintiffs, who got the order of remand should have led further evidence and subjected for cross examination. Plaintiffs are total strangers and not related to the family of defendants. Hence, they cannot maintain suit for partition. The citations relied upon by plaintiffs are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Unless the evidence of defendants is closed, question of collecting blood samples does not arise. Hence, prayed to reject the IA. 4. Heard arguments. Perused the material on record. 5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:- 1. Whether IA No.20 filed by plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed ? 2. What Order ? - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following: - R E A S O N S 7. POINT No.1 : Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendant claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant Anjanappa are children of Ammayamma. Defendant denied relationship with plaintiffs. After trial, this Court dismissed the suit, which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2523/2007. On 13.06.2025 The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for disposal within time limit of one year. The operative portion of judgment of The Hon'ble High Court reads thus: O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.6014/1997 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. (iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint. 6 O.S.6014/1997 (v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 (vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. (vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling. (viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997. (ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given. (x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025. In view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court, plaintiffs amended their plaint. Defendants filed their additional Written Statement. Thereafter, plaintiffs examined a witness as PW6 who is crossexamined by defendants. On 25.07.2025 both party advocates submitted evidence as closed. Thereafter, advocate for defendant submitted that he has approached The Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.2523/2007. Thereafter, advocate for defendant submitted that The Hon'ble Apex Court referred the matter to mediation. On 30.08.2025 mediation report returned unsettled. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 8. Advocate for defendants filed I.A. No.14 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which came to be rejected by this Court. The defendants approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order thus : ORDER The petition is allowed in part. 2. The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.6014/1997 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed insofar as only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). 3. Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. However, the plaintiffs or the defendants shall complete their evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) shall be subject to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling as opined by this Court in Regular First Appeal without any further delay. 5. It is made clear that any unnecessary adjournments and delay caused by either of the parties shall be viewed seriously and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either of the parties. On 17.11.2025 this Court directed both plaintiffs & defendant No.1(b) to appear before the Court on 19.11.2025 to submit their blood samples. This Court also issued summons to the Center for DNA Forensic Laboratory Private Limited, GenCare, Rajaji Nagara, Bengaluru. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 9. In view of the order of this Court, on 19.11.2025 plaintiffs and the technicians of the lab were present before the Court. But, on that date, defendant No.1(b) did not keep himself present before the Court and advocate appearing for defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) submitted that this Court has no discretion / power to direct the 8 O.S.6014/1997 parties to keep present before the Court for collection of DNA sample. As such, he did not keep his party present. Accordingly, when defendant No.1(b) did not keep himself present, the blood samples were not drawn and the technicians of the lab returned without collecting the blood samples. 10. Thereafter, advocate for defendant No.1(b) filed several applications for recalling the witnesses & recasting the issues etc. In spite of granting time by The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025 to the defendants to lead evidence within time frame, defendants did not lead evidence. As such, on 03.01.2026 this Court has recorded the evidence of defendants as Nil and posted the matter for arguments. Thereafter, advocate for plaintiffs has filed this I.A. 11. Advocate for plaintiffs argued that the Court has inherent power to implement its orders. The Hon'ble High Court has specifically directed to the parties to go for Avuncular DNA test. In spite of order of this Court, defendant No.1 did not keep himself present before the Court which shows that defendant No.1(b) has no respect towards the order of the Court and to avoid to give blood - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 samples, he did not keep himself present before the Court. Hence, it is necessary to issue directions to the jurisdictional police to secure the presence of the defendant No.1(b) before the Court. Advocate for plaintiffs relied upon following rulings : i. 2014 SCC OnLine P & H 4982 (Sube Singh v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.); and, ii. AIR 2012 DELHI 151 (Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr.). 9 O.S.6014/1997 12. Advocate for defendant No.1(b) submitted that IA filed is not in proper form. The provision mentioned in the IA under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC does not speak regarding the purpose for which this IA is filed. Further, he has argued on technical grounds and submitted that this IA is not maintainable. On going through the orders passed by The Hon'ble High Court, the main dispute between the parties is regarding relationship. To decide the same, The Hon'ble High Court in its order in R.F.A. No.2523/2007 and further in W.P. No. 30888/2025 clearly directed the parties to go for DNA Avuncular test. In W.P. No.30888/2025 the Hon'ble High Court has specifically directed plaintiffs & defendant No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an Avuncular DNA test. 13. Based on the order of The Hon'ble High Court, this Court passed order on 17.11.2025 directing the parties to be present before the Court to submit blood samples. On that day, the technicians from DNA Forensic Laboratory - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 Private Limited were present in the Court. But, defendant No.1(b) did not present before the Court and his advocate submitted that this Court has no discretion / power to direct the parties to keep themselves present before the Court. In this regard, advocate for plaintiffs relied upon the ruling of The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine P & H 4982 (Sube Singh v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.) has held thus : 14. In our view, to say, that the exercise earlier undertaken by the Court, was an empty one and in futility that though the Court could issue a direction for DNA testing but not implement or enforce the same, has the tendency of making the law and the Court, a laughing stock. The perception of "the law" as Mr. Bumble (in Oliver Twist) said "is a ass a idiot" will be cemented, if the Courts themselves hold their own orders to be 10 O.S.6014/1997 unimplementable and unenforceable. It is the duty of every Court to prevent its machinery from being made a sham, thereby running down the Rule of Law and rendering itself an object of public ridicule. The House of Lords, in Attorney- General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1987) 1 W.L.R. 1248 observed that public interest requires that we have a legal system and Courts which command public respect and if the Courts were to make orders manifestly incapable of achieving their avowed purpose, law would indeed be an ass. It was further held that the Court should not make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do." It is further held thus : It would now be for the trial Judge to fix a fresh date and time for appearance of the parties at Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal for drawing samples of blood with police help if required. In case police assistance is found absolutely necessary then a direction is issued to the police to offer help politely and with reasonable force and care, in case resistance is offered by the petitioner-defendant. Expenses of the test and cost of police assistance rendered, if required, to the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 extent of actual expenditure incurred in travel to & fro by Government vehicle or by an escort will be borne by the plaintiffs on presentation of bills by the Police Department. 14. On going through the citations relied upon by plaintiffs, The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the Court has inherent power to implements its orders. In this case, The Hon'ble High Court has directed the parties to go for DNA test. In obedience of the orders of The Hon'ble High Court, this Court has issued direction to plaintiffs and defendant No.1(b) to be keep themselves present before the Court. In spite of the specific order of this Court passed on 17.11.2025, defendant No.1(b) did not keep himself present. As such, to implement the order of The Hon'ble High Court i.e., conducting DNA test / DNA profiling, it is necessary to secure the presence of parties before the Court. Thus, looking to the facts & 11 O.S.6014/1997 circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that this IA filed by plaintiffs deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 15. POINT No.2 : In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following :- O R D E R I.A. No.20 filed by plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed. The SHO of Yalahanka Police Station, Bengaluru, is directed to secure defendant - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 No.1(b) and produce him before the Court at 11:00 a.m., on 19.01.2026. Further, issue necessary directions to the DNA Forensic Laboratory Private Limited, Advanced GenCare, Rajaji Nagara, Bengaluru, to keep present the technicians to collect the blood samples of the parties. Plaintiffs shall bear the expenses of Police Department, if any, in securing the presence of defendant No.1(b).” “COMMON ORDER ON I.A. Nos.24 & 25 Advocate for defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) filed IA No.24 under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to recall the order dated 03.01.2026 and permit defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) to cross-examine PW6. Advocate for defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) filed IA No.25 under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC with a prayer to recall the order dated 03.01.2026 and permit defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) for further cross-examination of PW6. 2. In the affidavits supporting these IAs, it is contended by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) that plaintiffs filed this suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2007, which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in R.F.A. No.2523/2007. During the pendency of R.F.A., plaintiffs filed I.A. under Order 6 Rule - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 17 CPC and another I.A. under Order 26 Rule 10(A) CPC. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal and also said applications. Thereafter, after amendment of the plaint, adll issues have been framed and plaintiffs led their evidence of PW6. PW6 is cross-examined by defendants. But, further cross- examination of PW6 is necessary. As per the order dated 03.01.2026 evidence of defendants is taken as nil. Hence, it is necessary to recall said order and permit defendants to further cross-examine PW6. 3. Advocate for plaintiffs filed objections to these IAs contending that Smt. Maheshwari / PW6 was examined on 16.07.2025 and she has been cross-examined by defendants on 17.07.2025, 21.07.2025 & on 29.07.2025. Thus, PW6 is fully cross- examined by defendants. Order 18 Rule 17 CPC gives limited scope and it cannot be invoked to reopen the entire cross-examination to fill the lacuna. This provision cannot be used to enable the party to lead second round of cross-examination. On 17.11.2025, this Court in faithful compliance of the order of The Hon'ble High Court, directed plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.1(b) to appear on 19.11.2025 before this Court for collection of blood for DNA profiling. On that day, the technicians from the lab were present and plaintiffs were present. But, defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) deliberately remained absent and the advocate for defendants submitted before the Court that this Court has no power to direct the parties to keep present themselves before the Court. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 3(a). Prior to this also, defendants have filed several applications which came to be rejected by this Court. This I.A. is filed only to derail the DNA test which is central to the adjudication of the suit. The Hon'ble High Court directed to dispose this suit within one year. It is not the case of defendants that PW1 is not tendered for cross-examination. But, PW6 was cross-examined by defendants at length by taking several adjournments. These IAs amount to ignoring and overreaching the Hon'ble High Court's clear mandate and is a blatant attempt to misuse the limited leave granted for amendment and reopen the entire trial which is impermissible. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025 has warned that any unnecessary adjournments or delays shall be viewed seriously and the Trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs. No grounds are made out to allow these IAs. Hence, prayed to reject these IAs. 4. Heard arguments. Perused the material on record. 5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:- 1. Whether IA No.24 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed ? 2. Whether IA No.25 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed ? 3. What Order ? 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the Negative - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 Point No.3 : As per the final order, for the following : - R E A S O N S 7. POINT Nos.1 & 2 : Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendant claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant Anjanappa are children of Ammayamma. Defendant denied relationship with plaintiffs. After trial, this Court dismissed the suit, which was challenged before The Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2523/2007. On 13.06.2025 The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for disposal within time limit of one year. The operative portion of judgment of The Hon'ble High Court reads thus: O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.6014/1997 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. (iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint. (v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. (vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 (vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling. (viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997. (ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given. (x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025. After remand of the matter, plaint was amended in view of the permission granted by The Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, additional Written Statement came to be filed and additional issues were framed. Thereafter, plaintiffs examined a witness as PW6 and PW6 was fully cross- examined by defendants. Thus, PW6 is fully cross- examined by defendants. On 25.07.2025 both counsels submitted evidence of both parties closed. Thereafter, the case was posted to keep the parties present before the Court to submit their blood samples for DNA test as ordered by The Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, defendants changed their counsel who went on filing applications after applications. Defendants filed amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which came to be rejected by this - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 Court, against which defendants approached The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025 wherein the Hon'ble High Court ordered thus : ORDER The petition is allowed in part. 2. The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.6014/1997 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed insofar as only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). 3. Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. However, the plaintiffs or the defendants shall complete their evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) shall be subject to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling as opined by this Court in Regular First Appeal without any further delay. 5. It is made clear that any unnecessary adjournments and delay caused by either of the parties shall be viewed seriously and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either of the parties. Advocate for plaintiffs has already submitted that he has no further evidence. 8. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.30888/2025 granted liberty to defendants to complete their evidence within a period of one month. In spite of this direction from The Hon'ble High Court, defendants went on filing applications after the applications and did not lead their evidence. Thereafter, on 03.01.2026 the case was posted for final arguments. At this juncture, advocate for defendants filed these IAs. Advocate for defendants, prior to - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 these IAs, also filed I.A. No. 17 with a prayer to recall PW1 Smt. Jayalakshmamma for cross-examination. Said I.A. came to be rejected vide order dated 03.12.2025. Defendants could have included PW6 also in I.A. No.17. But, they are filing one application for one witness and another application for another witness. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the ruling reported in (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 (Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors.) has held thus : 11. The respondent filed the application under Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the court to make orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The basic purpose of Rule 17 is to enable the court to clarify any position or doubt, and the court may, either suo-moto or on the request of any party, recall any witness at any stage in that regard. This power can be exercised at any stage of the suit. No doubt, once the court recalls the witness for the purpose of any such clarification, the court may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the witness for the purpose of clarification required or permitted by the court. The power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any further. The said power cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness. It cannot also be used for the purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence. “No prejudice is caused to either party” is also not a permissible ground to invoke Rule 17. No doubt, it is a discretionary power of the court but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to invoke the provision, it should also see that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted on that ground. 12. In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar V. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, this principle has been summarized at paras 25, 28 and 29: 25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 10. The Hon'ble High Court has specifically directed the parties to go for DNA test. In compliance of the said order, this Court issued directions to plaintiffs & defendant No.1(b) to keep present before the Court on 19.11.2025 as per order dated 17.11.2025. On the said date, plaintiffs were present. Technicians from the lab were also present to collect the blood samples. But, defendant No.1(b) did not keep himself present and advocate for defendant No.1(b) submitted that this Court has no power to direct the parties to be present before the Court. As such, he did not keep his party present before the Court. 11. Plaintiffs have already submitted that they have no further evidence. The Hon'ble High Court has granted one month time to lead defendants' evidence in view of order in W.P. No.30888/2025. In spite of that order, defendants did not led their evidence within the time period granted by The Hon'ble High Court. PW6 is already fully cross-examined by defendants. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that defendants have not made out any good - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 grounds to allow these IAs. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 & 2 in the Negative. 12. POINT No.3 : In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : - O R D E R I.A. No.24 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Section 151 of CPC is rejected. I.A. No.25 filed by defendant Nos.1(b) & 1(c) under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC is rejected.” 6. As can be seen from the impugned orders passed on I.A.Nos.24 and 25, the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the rival contentions and has taken note of the fact that PW.6, who was sought to be recalled had been examined in chief on 16.07.2025, pursuant to which, she was cross examined by the petitioners on three occasions i.e., 17.07.2025, 21.07.2025 and 29.07.2025 and subsequent to the matter being posted on 17.11.2025 for the purpose of DNA test, the petitioners had filed the present applications, which were filed in order to protract the proceedings and without complying with the directions issued by this Court not only in RFA No.2523/2007, but also in - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 W.P.No.30888/2025. The Trial Court also came to the correct conclusion that the petitioners having cross-examined PW.6 on three occasions were not entitled to any indulgence by requesting an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.6, which was impermissible in law in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting I.A.No.24 and 25 filed by the petitioners by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition especially when the request of the petitioners to recall PW.1 had been declined by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.39171/2025 dated 07.01.2026 referred to supra. 7. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.20 is concerned, the Trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that having regard to the directions issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit after remand and with a direction to the parties to co-operate in this regard, since defendant Nos.1(b) did not keep himself present in compliance of the said directions for DNA test, it was just and expedient to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC in the facts - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 and circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court as well as other High Courts invoking its inherent power to issue directions in compliance of the directions issued by this Court for the purpose of DNA test, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.20 filed by the plaintiffs by passing the impugned order, which also does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition, particularly when the petitioners have been unnecessarily protracting the proceedings on one pretext or the other despite directions issued by this Court referred to supra. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor the same said to have occasioned any prejudice or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8326 WP No. 1393 of 2026 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL/SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49