- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34784 WP No. 20574 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20574 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT KODIYALA VILLAGE, KARENAHALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 562 109. 2. SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, W/O RAMANJINI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 106. 3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34784 WP No. 20574 of 2026 AND: 1. SRI. MANJESH KUMAR S, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT RAVUGODLU VILLAGE, BOLARE POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 082. 2. SMT. MANJULA, D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, W/O SHIVARAMU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT RAVUGODLU VILLAGE, BOLARE POST, BIDADI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 082. 3. SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI, D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, W/O JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT RAVUGODLU VILLAGE, BOLARE POST, BIDADI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 082. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED- 15-03-2025 ON I.A NO.13 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, IN OS NO.1369/2012 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34784 WP No. 20574 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2025 passed on I.A.No13 filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1369/2012 by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. At the stage of cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner has filed an I.A. under Section 151 CPC seeking to receive the plaintiff's affidavit evidence by discarding the earlier affidavit filed on 19.02.2021. In the affidavit, he has submitted that the suit is for the relief of specific performance of contract. He has taken NOC from his previous counsel and engaged the services of another counsel, who has filed a Vakalath on 13.01.2020. Due to COVID-19, the plaintiff could not lead his evidence. On 19.02.2021, the evidence by way of affidavit was filed. Documents were marked, and the case was posted for cross-examination. However, his counsel verified the chief- examination affidavit and came to know that the affidavit was prepared by his previous counsel, retyped, and filed before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34784 WP No. 20574 of 2026 Court. Because of that affidavit, the defendant's counsel was cross-examined on certain facts. It was advised to the plaintiff to file a fresh affidavit. Hence, the present application is filed under Section 151 of CPC. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. The trial Court observed that the trial had commenced. The plaintiff had filed the chief-examination by way of affidavit and marked exhibits. PW1 was cross-examined by defendant Nos. 3 and 5. At this stage, the plaintiff has come up with the present application seeking to discard his evidence by way of affidavit filed before the Court, stating that the facts stated in the affidavit are not averred in the plaint. The trial Court observed that defendant Nos. 3 and 5 had commenced the cross-examination. The evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the plaintiff PW1 on oath, stating that whatever was stated in the chief-examination affidavit. When such is the case, the question of allowing this application will not arise, and accordingly, it was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted, in tune with the application filed before the trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34784 WP No. 20574 of 2026 court, that unless and until this application is allowed, the petitioners will be put to hardship. 5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials on record. This Court, in the preceding paragraphs, has observed what has been discussed by the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23