- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4282/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI. S. SHIVANNA W/O LATE SRI. A.N. SHESHADRI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.1071, PRS LANE NAGARTHPET, BENGALURU-02. 2. SMT. SHEELA BHUVANESHWAR D/O LATE SRI. SHIVANNA W/O SRI. V. BHUVANESHWAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.20/1, 9TH CROSS CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-02. 3. SRI. S. RAMA S/O LATE SRI. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.20/1, 9TH CROSS CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-02 (SINCE MENTALLY RETARDED REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.2). 4. SMT. S. RAMADEVI D/O LATE SRI. SHIVANNA W/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 302/2, CK PALYA CROSS HONNADEVANAHALLI BANNERGHATTA BENGALURU-83. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 5. SRI. RAMESH G.V. S/O VENKATARAYALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.153/13, IST CROSS VIJAYANAPURAM LAYOUT BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S. ADV.,) AND: SMT. DEVEERAMMA W/O NAGARAJA PATIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NEAR SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE BASAVANAPURAM BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BRYEN STIENBERG, ADV., FOR SRI. JOSE SEBASTIAN, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2021, PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-27) IN OS.NO.8044/2012, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.12 TO 14 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THESE APPLICATIONS PERMITTING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE BY PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2021, PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-27) IN O.S.NO.8044/2012, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.10 TO 11 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THESE APPLICATIONS PERMITTING THE DEFENDANT NO.2 TO SUBMIT HIMSELF FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AND TO PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2021 passed on IA.Nos.10 to 14 in OS.No.8044/2012 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Prashanth H.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Bryen Stienberg, learned counsel for Sri.Jose Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.8044/2012 against the petitioners seeking relief of a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, a declaration that the sale deed dated 23.06.1986 is not binding upon her and further declaration - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 that she is entitled for restoration of possession of the suit schedule property and a decree of permanent injunction. In the said suit, defendant No.1 initially remained absent, whereas defendant No.2 entered appearance. It is contended that suit summons was not served on the original defendant No.1. Later, the legal heirs of defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed their written statement. Defendant No.2 also filed his written statement. It is noticed that defendant No.2 tendered the evidence as DW1. However, he was not available for cross-examination on 06.06.2018. Hence, his cross-examination was recorded as nil, and the matter was proceeded with further. It is further to be noticed that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 adduced their evidence and were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, they filed applications seeking permission to lead further evidence on the ground that due to inadvertence, two material documents could not be marked during the course of their evidence. The applications filed by the legal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 representatives of defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 seeking to recall the orders, permission to lead further evidence by the LRs of defendant No.1 and permission to tender DW1 i.e., defendant No.2, for cross-examination were rejected by the trial Court. It is also to be noticed that the suit is for declaration of ownership and further declaration that the sale deed dated 23.06.1996 is not binding on the plaintiff, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 4. It is not in dispute that the LRs of defendant No.1 have shown diligence in adducing their evidence by producing the left out documents at the earliest opportunity. Hence, in my considered view, when a specific assertion is made that they intend to produce two documents and adduce further evidence as they left out by inadvertence, I am of the view that one opportunity needs to be provided to them in the interest of justice. Similarly, defendant No.2, who had examined himself as DW1 could not tender himself for cross-examination on 06.06.2018 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 and on the sole ground, his evidence was closed and the matter was posted for further stage of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if one opportunity is provided to DW1 i.e., defendant No.2, to tender himself for cross-examination, the ends of justice would be met. Accepting his request and for the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view that one opportunity needs to be provided to the LRs of defendants No.1 to lead further evidence and to defendant No.2 to tender himself for further cross-examination. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that there is substantial delay on the part of the defendants in conducting the proceedings. Hence, the applications are deserved to be allowed on terms. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 25.01.2021 passed on IA.Nos.10 to 14 are hereby set - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28214 W.P. No.4282/2021 aside. Consequently, aforesaid IAs are allowed subject to legal heirs of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing. iii. The trial Court shall permit the LRs of defendant No.1 to adduce further evidence and DW1/defendant No.2 to tender himself for further cross-examination. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24