- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26898 WP No. 16032 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16032 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI LOKESH S/O LATE R SWAMIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ANAND GANESH M., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.USHADEVI K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. T.R.NAGARATHNA W/O T.R.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.870, 13TH MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 050 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 PASSED IN O.S. NO.399/2018 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26898 WP No. 16032 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in O.S.No.399/2018 by the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District on I.A filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; ii. Allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and permit the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1; iii. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Petitioner/defendant has filed an I.A. seeking to recall the order dated 29.07.2024 and to permit the defendant to cross-examine PW.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26898 WP No. 16032 of 2026 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that as the defendant was out of station for six months, the Court has taken the defendant's evidence as nil and posted the matter. It is submitted that for his personal reasons he was not in station and he could not instruct the advocate and if the applications are not allowed, it would cause a lot of prejudice to the petitioner/defendant and these aspects were not considered by the trial Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, perused the material on record. This Court has perused the affidavit that is filed in support of the application. It is stated that he was out of station for more than six months. This application is filed after one and half years. In the affidavit, there is absolutely no reason for the latches on the part of the petitioner. It is the submission that, if this application is not allowed, it would cause lot of prejudice. The Court cannot come to the rescue of a litigant, who is not vigilant in prosecuting the matter. There are no reasons stated in the affidavit or even in the submissions before this Court on why the application was not filed at the earliest point of time. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26898 WP No. 16032 of 2026 Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2018, the order of the trial Court do not require any interference from this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6