- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17253 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT NETRAVATHI SWAMY W/O B.S. KUMARSWAMY D/O LATE. K.N. SHANKARALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.158, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOWMYA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S NAGARAJ, S/O LATE. K.N. SHANKARALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O. NO.54, 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE, OKALIPURAM EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 021, 2. S. JAGADEESH S/O LATE. K.N. SHANKARALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O. KODALAGARA VILLAGE, DUGADIHALLI POST CHIKKANAYANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 226 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 09/04/2026, IN I.A.NO.1/2026 AND I.A.NO.2/2026 (ANNEXURE- H) FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER, IN O.S. NO. 25593/2008, UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CH-29) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 in O.S.No.25593/2008 dated 09.04.2026 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and declaration in O.S.No.25593/2008 seeking equal partition in her father’s properties and declaration that she is the absolute owner in the schedule-C properties which were bequeathed by the mother of the petitioner vide Wills - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 dated 30.03.1993 and 10.06.1999. The suit was filed on 02.04.2008. On 06.04.2026, I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 was filed requesting the trial Court to reopen the case and recall and reopen the stage of further examination of DW.1. By order impugned, the trial Court had dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 3. While dismissing the applications, the trial Court had observed that the applicant/plaintiff in his affidavit filed in support of applications had stated that cross examination of DW.1 was not completed and further cross examination of DW.1 is very much required. The main contention of defendant No.1 is that on 06.03.2023, the counsel for plaintiff submitted that there is no cross of DW.1. On that day, plaintiff was very much present. Further, it is the contention of defendant No.1 that on 4 occasions, DW.1 has been cross examined completely covering all aspects of matters. The trial Court observed that on perusal of the order sheet dated 06.03.2023, it is clearly mentioned that counsel for plaintiff submitted that there is no further cross of DW.1. Thereafter, the matter was posted for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 cross of DW.1 by defendant No.2. Further, on 12.03.2020, 28.01.2021, 27.06.2022 and 20.02.2023, on four occasions DW.1 has cross examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff in length which runs into nearly 23 pages. The DW.1 was exhaustively cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that at this juncture, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the applications and the applications filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The trial Court also observed that the plaintiff having kept silent for nearly 3 years has come up with the applications just to delay the proceedings and accordingly dismissed the applications. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has placed two documentary evidences before the trial Court after the cross-examination of DW.1, i.e., Ex.65, Ex.P64(a) and Ex.P64(b). The DW.1 has produced a different Will before the A.C. Court and BBMP, but not before the concerned Court. Therefore, cross-examination of DW.1 is very much required to prove the case of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the trial Court had failed to take into account certain vital - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 and material facts pertaining to the case. It is submitted that if the cross-examination of DW.1 is not done, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the plaintiff to cross examine DW.1. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. This suit is filed in the year 2008. On 06.03.2023, the plaintiff has submitted before the trial Court that there is no further cross of DW.1. On 12.03.2020, 28.01.2021, 27.06.2022 and 20.02.2023, on four occasions, DW.1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff at length and the evidence is running into nearly 23 pages. When the matter is posted for arguments, this application is filed. This Court has perused the affidavits filed in support of the applications. It is stated that on 12.03.2025, the trial Court was pleased to post the case for arguments on 06.04.2026. Cross-examination of DW.1 was not completed and further conducting cross-examination of DW.1 is very much required and the plaintiff has instructed the counsel to cross examine DW.1. If the application is not allowed, the plaintiff will - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28995 WP No. 17253 of 2026 be put to irreparable loss and great hardship. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is change of counsel. Whenever there is a change of counsel, the proceedings cannot be restarted from the beginning. Even in this present application, nothing has been stated with regard to the necessity to further cross-examine DW.1. The trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the applications and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3