- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17112 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR N ANANTHA PADMANABHA S/O MR NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.90 IST MAIN ROAD IST FLOOR NURPATHUNGA NAGARA KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD J P NAGAR 8TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 076. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE FORUM NO.20, 9TH MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011 REPRESENTED BY MR A RAJU PRESIDENT 2. SMT K S SUMATHI HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.663 SURABHI 6TH MAIN, RBI LAYOUT J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 BANGALORE-560 078. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAMESH BABU N., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 14.9.2021 ALLOWING IA NO.3 (APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 READ WITH 151 OF CPC FOR RECALLING ORDER DTD.12.11.2014 ANNEXURE-F IN O.S.NO.27149/2010 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-21) MAYO HALL (IN CHARGE 20) AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE W.P., 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 is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.27149/2010 by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-21), Mayo Hall, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Sri.B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are the defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking for a declaration and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff has adduced the evidence. Thereafter, the defendants have completed evidence and DW1 was fully cross-examined. Thereafter, the applications were filed seeking to reopen the evidence of PW1, the said application was allowed and PW1 was permitted to adduce further evidence and for production of documents. It is contended that the said applications were filed on a particular day and all the applications were allowed without even hearing the petitioner. It is further submitted that the documents now intended to be produced were very much available with the plaintiff when the suit was filed and evidence was adduced. Hence, the question of showing any leniency to the petitioner would not arise. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and dragging the proceedings further. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri. Ramesh Babu. N, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that there - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 was a change of counsel, and upon noticing that some of the important aspects were not covered in the evidence of PW1, the applications were filed to adduce further evidence and to produce the documents. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent has filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff-society being run by the Executive Committee presently consisting of Sri. A. Raju as the President and other prayers. In the said suit, the defendants have filed a detailed written statement. The plaintiff has adduced evidence, and the defendants have also concluded their evidence. DW1 was fully cross- examined. At that stage, the plaintiff filed three applications i.e., I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 seeking to recall the order dated 12.11.2014 by permitting PW1 to lead further evidence and to produce additional documents. By the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 impugned order, the Trial Court allowed all the three applications. 6. It is to be noticed that the affidavit accompanying the applications indicates that the documents now intended to be produced are claimed to have been filed before the Court along with filing of the suit. However, they were not marked at the time of examination in-chief of PW1. The deponent has also stated that some of the important aspects were not covered in his evidence and that, in view of change of counsel, on noticing such lapse, the applications were filed. It is further stated that the said documents are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 7. Considering the averments in the affidavit and taking note of the fact that the documents are claimed to be necessary for adjudication of the dispute. I am of the view that the Trial Court is fully justified in allowing the applications. However, this Court cannot ignore the aspect - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30002 WP No. 17112 of 2021 that when the trial was concluded and cross-examination of DW1 was over at the time, these applications came to be filed. For such a lapse and inconvenience caused to petitioner, the order of the Trial Court is required to be upheld on certain terms. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the order of the Trial Court by allowing the I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants. 9. In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2021 would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8