- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522512022 NC: 2026:KHC:42853 W.P. No.22699/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22699/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHI BAIL AGED 50 YEARS W/O LATE ONKAR NAIK R/AT NEAR BUS STAND BESIDE WATER TANK YELLAMMA NAGARA THOLAHUNASE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH M.N. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. VASANTHA BAI AGED 48 YEARS W/O LATE LOHITH NAIK. 2. SRI. STEPHEN NAIK AGED 22 YEARS S/O LATE LOHIT NAIK. 3. KUMARI VEDAVATHI AGED 20 YEARS D/O LATE LOHIT NAIK. ALL ARE R/AT HEMMANAKATTE VILLAGE BHARAMASAGAR HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YALLALINGESHWAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522512022 NC: 2026:KHC:42853 W.P. No.22699/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. DAVANAGERE ON I.A.NOS.5 AND 6 DATED 08.09.2022 IN O.S.NO 569/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS & 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 08.09.2022 passed on IA.Nos.5 and 6 in OS.No.569/2011 by II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Umesh M.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Yallalingeshwar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.569/2011 seeking recovery of money. In the said suit, the defendants filed their written statement, issues were framed, the parties led the evidence, and the matter was - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522512022 NC: 2026:KHC:42853 W.P. No.22699/2022 posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed two applications in IA.Nos.5 and 6, seeking to reopen the stage of the suit from arguments to further evidence of the plaintiff and for issuance of summons to the witnesses to produce documents. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected both applications by recording detailed reasons, that the plaintiff had been provided with sufficient opportunity, as the evidence of the plaintiff had commenced in the year 2013. 4. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 on 29.01.2013 and sought permission to lead further evidence. After granting six adjournments, her request for further evidence was rejected on 27.08.2015, whereafter the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence. Again, on 21.09.2015, the plaintiff sought reopening of the stage for the purpose of plaintiff’s further evidence, which came to be allowed. PW2 was examined on 30.10.2015, cross-examination of PW2 was completed on 02.11.2016 and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522512022 NC: 2026:KHC:42853 W.P. No.22699/2022 Thereafter, DW1 was examined on 24.11.2016 and, despite DW1 remaining present on several occasions, the plaintiff took repeated adjournments and completed the cross-examination of DW1 only on 28.07.2021. The matter was thereafter posted for arguments on 11.08.2021. Even then, after taking six adjournments without advancing arguments, the plaintiff filed the present applications on 14.09.2021, only when the matter was posted for final arguments. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28