- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16720/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. P. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O P. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.169-E, THAYAPPA GARDEN BEHND HEMA NURSERY BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, IIM POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P. JAYAKUMARA, ADV.,) AND: 1. MR. S. THYAGARAJA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.1, KHATHA NO.3/17 THAYAPPA GARDEN BEHIND HEMA NURSERY BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, IIM POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE 560076. 2. MR. S. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.8, 6TH CROSS, OPP AIYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, SUDHAM NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:15.09.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS WAIVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.02 AND 03 IN O.S.NO.3039/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCCH-23), VIDE ANNEXURE-L. TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.3039/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCCH-23) & ETC. THIS PETITION, 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 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 passed on IA.Nos.2 and 3 in OS.No.3039/2005 by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.P.P.Jayakumara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by them. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court, which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 was assailed by defendant No.2 before this Court in a Regular First Appeal. This Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed applications seeking reopening of the stage of the plaintiff’s further evidence and also sought leave of the Court to produce certain documents. It is submitted that the trial Court erroneously rejected both the applications. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be produced are necessary to establish the factum of readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and he had sufficient funds in his hand at the time of entering into the agreement. It is also submitted that if such documents are not allowed to produce, great injustice would be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting the plaintiff to adduce further evidence and produce the documents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 3. Per contra, Sri.M.J.Alva, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court, by a well- reasoned order, has recorded a clear finding for denial or rejection of the applications and same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.3039/2005 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.06.2004 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 25.03.2013 directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.2 preferred - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 RFA.No.857/2013 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 09.06.2021 allowed the appeal and in terms of the observations made at paragraph No.8, the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to reconsider the same. It would be appropriate to extract relevant observations of this Court as under: “8. xxxxx The appellant should be afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the trial, which in the facts of the case has been denied to him. The impugned judgment is therefore, set aside and matter is remitted to the Trial Court. The suit is of the year 2005, therefore, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.07.2021. The Trial Court shall fix a date of cross- examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. On the said date, the plaintiff shall keep his witnesses present and the defendant No.1 shall cross- examine the aforesaid witnesses. The Trial Court thereafter fix a date for recording the evidence of appellant / defendant No.1 and on the said date, defendant No.1 shall keep all his witnesses present before the Trial Court. The aforesaid witnesses shall be examined and cross-examined by the plaintiff. The Trial Court thereafter shall proceed to hear the arguments and shall decide the suit. The Trial Court shall make an endeavor to conclude the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months form the date of appearance of the parties. Needless to state that the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court and shall not seek any adjournment. In addition, the plaintiff/appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Trial Court as costs on or before 12.07.2021, which shall be payable to respondent No.1/plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in terms indicated above.” 6. The aforesaid order of this Court makes it clear that the appellant, who was defendant No.2 was provided an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness and defendant No.2 was permitted to adduce evidence. A further direction was issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of four months. Be that as it may, after the remand, the plaintiff filed applications seeking recall of the stage of evidence to permit PW1 to lead further evidence and also seeking leave of the Court to produce certain documents. 7. It is to be noticed that in paragraph No.2 of the affidavits accompanying the said applications, the plaintiff has stated that he had examined himself as PW1 and produced documents marked as exhibits on his behalf. It is further deposed that he was doing transport business, owned 5 trucks on the relevant date of agreement; that he and his wife owned a residential apartment which had - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 been let out on the rent to some third parties and was getting income, and they had received rental advances at the time of entering into the agreement of sale apart from the income from the agriculture and the same is required to be produced in the suit and accordingly the application was filed. The affidavit of the plaintiff further indicates that on the date of agreement of sale, he owned five trucks, an apartment in his and his wife's name which was let out for rent and received rental advances. These events were very much available if the version of the plaintiff is accepted when the suit was filed. However, the affidavit is silent as to why those documents were not placed along with plaint. The affidavit is silent as to relevancy of those documents to decide the suit. In the absence of any such explanation in the affidavit, I am of the view that the applications cannot be allowed. 8. It is also required to be noticed that this Court, while remanding the matter to the trial Court had not remanded the matter back with a direction to provide an - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34337 W.P. No.16720/2021 opportunity to all the parties to the proceedings to adduce evidence, but remanded with a specific direction to provide an opportunity to defendant No.2 alone. Hence, the trial Court considering the said aspect has rightly rejected the applications and come to conclusion that the application cannot be allowed. The order of the trial Court is a well reasoned order. Considering the direction of this Court, I am of the view that the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24