- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19324/2021 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.19675/2021 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.19324/2021: BETWEEN: SMT. NEELAMMA W/O SRI. MALLESHWARA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.90, NEELA NIVAS SERVICE ROAD, M C LAYOUT NEAR GAYATHRI HOSPITAL PVT LTD., CHORD ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL K.N. ADV., FOR SRI. T. MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA .R S/O LATE L. RACHAPPA MAJOR, NO.99, NEW NO.44 ABOVE SANJEEV NURSING HOME PANTHARAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560039. 2. SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O LATE DR. MANOJ M MAJOR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 NO.165, 7TH CROSS BDA LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI EXTENSION 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE (BEHIND LIFELINE HOSPITAL) BANGALORE-560072. ALSO AT: SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O LATE DR. MANOJ M MAJOR GAYATHRI EDUCATION ACADEMY KOTTIGEPALYA, SRIGANDADA KAVAL NEAR MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560091. ALSO AT: SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O LAE DR. MANOJ M MAJOR GAYATHRI DIAGNOSTICS AND HEALTH SERVICES HARSHITH MANOJ FOUNDATION SUMKHA NO.10, 6TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI (NEAR BDA COMPLEX) BANGALORE-560072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. C.P. DHANANJAYA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-19) AT BANGALORE CITY ON IA NO.21 AND 22 UDNER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.2901/2013 DTD.29.9.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 IN W.P. NO.19675/2021: BETWEEN: SRI. RAMACHANDRA .R S/O LATE SRI. L. RACHAPPA AGED 44 YEARS R/AT OLD NO.99, NEW NO.44 ABOVE SANJEEV NURSING HOME PANTHARAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALROE 560039. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O LATE DR. MANOJ M MAJOR, 165,7TH CROSS BDA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI EXTN 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE (BEHIND LIFELINE HOSPITAL) BANGALOE 560072. 2. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O SRI. MALLESWARA MAJOR, R/AT 90 NEELA NIVAS, SERVICE ROAD M.C. LAYOUT NEAR GAYATHRI HOSPITAL PVT LTD, CHORD ROAD VIJAYANAGR, BANGALROE 560040. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.P. DHANANJAYA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. SUNIL K.N. ADV., FOR SRI. T. MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADV., FOR R2) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J DTD.29.9.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-19) AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.2901/2013 ON IA NO.18 TO 20/2021 & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER WP.No.19324/2021 is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.21 and 22 in OS.No.2901/2013 and WP.No.19675/2021 is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.18 to 20 in OS.No.2901/2013 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru City (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the petitions and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 3. The Petitioner in WP.No.19675/2021 is Sri.Ramachandra R. filed OS.No.2901/2013 against one Smt.Jayasheela and Smt.Neelamma seeking a judgment and decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,45,000/- together with interest. In the said suit, defendant No.2 filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiff has adduced the evidence and the matter was thereafter posted for the defendants' evidence. However, Defendant No.2 failed to lead the evidence and then the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed three applications in IA.Nos.18 to 20 seeking to recall the order dated 04.04.2019, reopening of the stage of evidence of PW1 and permission to PW1 to lead further evidence as well as to condone the delay in production of document i.e., bank statement. Defendant No.2, in turn, filed applications in IA.Nos.21 and 22 seeking reopening of the stage of evidence of defendant No.2 and permission to lead the evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 IN WP.No.19324/2021 4. WP.No.19324/2021 is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.21 and 22 seeking to recall and reopen the stage of defense evidence and to permit defendant No.2 to adduce the evidence. It is required to be noticed that despite being granted sufficient opportunities, defendant No.2 failed to lead evidence. The affidavits accompanying the applications in IA.Nos.21 and 22 disclose the reasons for not adducing the evidence. It is further to be noticed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is one for recovery of money and that defendant No.2 has filed a written statement, hence it would be appropriate to provide one opportunity to defendant No.2 to adduce evidence in order to comply with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the said writ petition filed by defendant No.2 deserves to be allowed by granting one opportunity to defendant No.2 to adduce evidence, subject to payment of costs of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 Rs.2,000/- to the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent Fund. IN WP.No.19675/2021 5. WP.No.19675/2021 is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.18 to 20 seeking permission to lead further evidence by producing a document i.e., bank statement. The affidavits accompanying these three applications indicate that the defendants have denied the transaction in question and that the bank statement sought to be produced is essential to substantiate the plaint averments and the said document is necessary for complete adjudication of the suit filed by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the delay in filing the applications needs to be condoned and the plaintiff ought to be granted one opportunity to produce the said document and lead further evidence, subject to terms. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31742 W.P. No.19324/2021 C/W W.P. No.19675/2021 the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent Fund. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed in OS.No.2901/2013 on IA.Nos.18 to 20 and IA.Nos.21 and 20 is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.18 to 20 filed by the plaintiff are allowed and IA.Nos.21 and 22 filed by defendant No.2 are allowed, subject to both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 paying the costs as directed hereinabove. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30