- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 25613 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. V. MEENAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, W/O S.C. RAMESH, R/AT VARAVANI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 561 211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH K.H, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. V. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, R/AT NO.71, 5TH CROSS, ANANDHA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, WARD NO.9, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. TAMILARASI K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 AND 6 IN O.S.NO.34/2022, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND 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 has been filed challenging the order dated 15.09.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.5 and 6 in O.S.No.34/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short). 2. Sri. B.N. Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition against the respondent. In the said suit, she has filed her evidence by way of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. During the cross-examination, by inadvertence she has stated that she has not signed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 the vakalath filed along with the plaint and she has not signed the affidavit filed as evidence. 3. It is further submitted that, the very petitioner filed two applications, one application seeking to recall PW-1 and another application seeking permission to re-examine the said witness to the limited extent of clarifying her statement before the Court. The said applications were rejected by the trial Court on the ground that permitting re-examination would lead to withdrawing the admission made by PW-1. 4. Sri. K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed these applications and submits that the petitioner is not an illiterate person and she has studied up to PUC, which is evident from her cross-examination. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has given clear admission in the cross-examination and if the present applications are allowed and PW-1 is permitted to be re-examined, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 then, it would amount to taking away the admission of PW-1 which is not permissible in law. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.34/2022 seeking relief of partition and separate possession of one-half share in the suit schedule property with other prayers. The respondent contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The petitioner herein has filed an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which was accepted in the trial Court and thereafter, PW-1 has been cross examined by the respondent / defendant on different dates. During the cross examination, PW-1 has stated that she has not signed the vakalath filed along with the plaint as well as the affidavit filed in lieu of her evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 7. Thereafter, the petitioner herself has filed two applications seeking to recall PW-1 and sought permission to re-examine PW-1. The affidavit supporting the said applications indicate that PW-1 / plaintiff herself has stated that during the course of cross-examination on 23.06.2023 and 28.07.2023, she was nervous and due to court atmosphere, she has stated that she has not signed the vakalath as well as the affidavit. The very same plaintiff categorically makes statement on oath that the statement with regard to the signing of vakalath as well as the signing of affidavit is incorrect. In my considered view, to the aforesaid extent only, an opportunity needs to be provided to PW-1 to lead her further evidence to clarify the same. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that by permitting re-examination of PW-1, the admissions made in cross-examination cannot be taken away. In my considered view, PW-1 is to be permitted to be re-examined only to the extent of her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 alleged inadvertent statement that she has not signed the vakalath as well as affidavit-in-chief and on the said point, respondent / defendant is also permitted to cross-examine the said witness. 9. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.5 and 6 in O.S.No.34/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, learned counsel for PW-1 is permitted to further examine PW-1 to the aforesaid extent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28048 WP No. 25613 of 2023 iv) The respondent has liberty to cross- examine the said witness. I.A.No.1/2026 is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8