- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18573/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. LINGARAJEGOWDA B.N. AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA R/AT SRI GURUNATHA RICE MILL PREMISES GANGAMATHASTHARA ROAD MADDUR MAIN ROAD MADDUR TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. [AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DTD:23.7.2026] …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. S. RAMU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. RANGAMMA AGED 92 YEARS W/O LATE S. RAMU R/AT SRB SAI KRISHNA CLASSIC GF.1, UDAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 2. SRI. DILEEPKUMAR .R AGED 74 YEARS S/O LATE S. RAMU R/AT DOOR NO.TF-5 SRB SAI KRISHNA CLASSIC UDAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. 3. SMT. R. ROHINI AGED 71 YEARS W/O SRI. M.V. RAVINDRANATH R/AT KAMALA FARM RAYANKERE POST H D KOTE ROAD MYSURU - 570 008. 4. SRI. R. SIDDARAJU AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE S. RAMU R/AT 2933, SIENNA APARTMENT FLAT NO. 303, JLB ROAD CHAMUNDIPURAM MYSURU - 57 0004. 5. SMT. D. VIJAYA AGED 62 YEARS W/O SRI. DILEEPKUMAR .R R/AT DOOR NO.TF-5 SRB SAI KRISHNA CLASSIC UDAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. 6. SRI. DEEPAK .D AGED 43 YEARS S/O SRI DILEEP KUMAR .R R/AT DOOR NO.TF-5 SRB SAI KRISHNA CLASSIC UDAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADV., FOR R2, R5 & R6 SRI. A.G. RAVIKUMAR, ADV., FOR R4 R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 17.09.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR IN O.S.NO.442/2012 ANNX-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW I.A. NO.18, 19 AND 21 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION & 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 17.09.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.18, 19 and 21 in O.S.No.442/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Maddur, (for short, ‘the trial Court’). - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 2. Heard Sri.Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V.D.Raviraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6 and Sri.A.G.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.442/2012 for bare injunction against the respondents-defendants. In the said suit, the defendants filed the written statement. Issues were framed. The plaintiff, through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder examined as PW1, and the said witness was cross- examined. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the applications in I.A.Nos.18, 19 and 21, viz., I.A.No.18 is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking to recall the stage of further examination of PW1; I.A.No.19 is filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC for production - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 of additional documents; and I.A.No.21 is filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to lead further evidence through witnesses by condoning the delay. The said applications were opposed by the defendants. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the applications. 4. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiff is making specific assertion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and in order to establish the said factum, the plaintiff intends to lead further evidence by producing certain documents. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the applications indicate that the plaintiff was hospitalized, and the plaintiff could not produce the documents which are now sought to be produced at the time of evidence and on behalf of the plaintiff, his agent was examined as PW1. Considering the said reasons and taking note of the list of documents and witnesses, I am of the considered view that one - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 opportunity needs to be provided to the plaintiff to produce the documents and adduce further evidence. 5. The apprehension of the defendants is that the attempt to lead further evidence is to overcome the admissions in the cross-examination. In my considered view, the said issue can always be pointed out by the defendants before the trial Court during the course of arguments and also they would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on this aspect as well. 6. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.18, 19 and 21 in O.S.No.442/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Maddur, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.18, 19 and 21 filed by the plaintiff are allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010385822021 NC: 2026:KHC:38094 W.P. No.18573/2021 iii. The plaintiff, without dragging the proceedings further, shall adduce the evidence, and the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. iv. It is needless to observe that if any additional or new facts are brought on record by the plaintiff, it is always open for the defendants to rebut the same in the form of additional evidence. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14