- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 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.19082/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MAHADEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O LATE KARGEGOWDA D/O MADAMMA R/AT T. MEGADAHALLI, TALAKADU HOBLI KUKKURU POST, T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O KEMPEGOWDA R/AT NAVILURU VILLAGE SANTHEMARALLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGRA DISTRICT - 571115. NOW R/AT D NO 1830 (BEHIND MARUTHI TENT) 6TH CROSS, JANATHA NAGARA T.K. LAYOUT, MYSURU CITY - 570009. 2. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/OLATE KEMPEGOWDA R/AT KAMALLI, KALKUNDA POST Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 BILLAGERE HOBLI NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571301. 3. SMT. NAGAMANI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O DORESWAMY DAIRY R/AT BOGAPURA VILLAGE SANTHEMARALLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGRA DISTRICT - 571115. 4. SMT. GOWRI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O REVANNA D/O LATE KARGEGOWDA R/AT KIRUKUNDA VILLAGE KULKUNDA POST BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571301. 5. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O LATE KARGEGOWDA R/AT T. MEGADAHALLI TALAKADU HOBLI, KUKKURU POST T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571122. 6. SMT. PUTTABASAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA. 7. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA. R6 & R7 ARE R/AT KAMAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 BILIGERE HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571301. 8. SMT. BETTAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O NANJAIAH. 9. SRI. BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE DYAVASHETTY. R8 & R9 ARE R/AT NAVILUR VILLAGE, GANAGANUR POST SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571115. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/DTD:26.10.2021, NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 IS WAIVED R1 AND R2 IS SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT YELANDUR IN O.S.NO.84/2015 ON IA NO.6 DTD.31.8.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND MAYBE PLEASED TO ALLOW IA NO.6 ON ITS FILE AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 passed on IA.No.6 in OSsw.No.84/2015 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Yelandur (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in OS.No.84/2015 seeking partition and separate possession of one-third share in the suit schedule property along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.1. The petitioner has filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs adduced their evidence and despite granting sufficient time, defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 No.1 failed to adduce any evidence. Hence, her evidence was taken as nil and the matter was proceeded further. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed an application in IA.No.6 seeking reopening the case and sought the permission to adduce her evidence, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the application had been filed only with an intention to drag the proceedings. 5. It is to be noticed that the suit is of the year 2015 and defendant No.1 had filed the written statement on 01.10.2015. Immediately when the stage had reached for the defendants’ evidence, defendant No.1 ought to have adduced the evidence, which, she failed to do. It is further to be noticed that the suit is one for partition and defendant No.1 in her written statement has specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property. When such a specific defence is raised, the right to adduce evidence is a substantive right available to the parties and denial of an opportunity would amount to violation of principles of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31743 W.P. No.19082/2021 natural justice to defendant No.1. Hence, the application needs to be allowed. This Court also takes note of the fact that the suit has been pending since the year 2015 and is stayed. Hence, it would be appropriate to provide one more opportunity to defendant No.1 to lead her evidence. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed on IA.No.6 in OS.No.84/2015 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Yelandur is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.6 filed by defendant No.1 is allowed. Defendant No.1 shall file affidavit evidence within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if not already filed and the trial Court shall proceed further and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28