- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26578 W.P. No.11587/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.11587/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. A.R. REKHA W/O B.K. SURESH BABU D/O A. RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED 5 YEARS R/AT NO.164, II MAIN TONACHIKOPPPALU LAYOUT MYSURU - 576 009 REP. BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI B.K. SURESH BABU. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAKSHMI, ADV., FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE, ADV.,) AND: SRI. N.B. BISANNA S/O N.S. BYRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 179, LIG I MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560 060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R. ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26578 W.P. No.11587/2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 30.03.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.3115 OF 2010 VIDE ANNX-H ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU AND FUTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE IA'S NOS 19 TO 21 FILED UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1A R/W SECTION 151 BY THE DEFENDANT SEEKING PERMISSION TO LEAD THE FURTHER DEFENSE EVIDENCE I.E., TO EXAMINE THE TWO WITNESSES SHOWN IN THE SAID IA AND OTHER 2 IA'S BOTH FILED SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE DEFENDANT FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DTD 17.01.2023 AND RE OPENING OF THE CASE TO LEAD THE FURTHER DEFENDANT EVIDENCE IE TO EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF WITNESSES VIDE ANNX-D TO F RESPECTIVELY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.03.2023 passed in O.S.No.3115/2010 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Smt.Lakshmi, learned counsel for Sri.Manjunathar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26578 W.P. No.11587/2023 3. The petitioner herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent herein. In the said suit, the respondent-defendant has filed the detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The respondent herein has filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall the order dated 17.01.2023 and sought permission to lead further defendant's evidence and also filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead further defence evidence i.e., to examine the two witnesses referred in the application. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the said application. 4. It is to be noticed that the said application is filed only after conclusion of the arguments on both sides. However, the trial Court recorded the reasons that the petitioner-plaintiff in order to prove her possession over the suit schedule property which the respondent- defendant is contending that he is in possession of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26578 W.P. No.11587/2023 said suit schedule property intends to examine two witnesses and considering the said request, the application came to be allowed on costs. 5. Considering the nature of the dispute and taking note of the reasons assigned by the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application to reopen the case and permitting the respondent-defendant to adduce evidence. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0