- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1693 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. V. SAMPATH, S/O LATE YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16 28TH CROSS, SEETHA COLONY, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. SAMPATH/Party-in-Person) AND: 1. SRI. FAYAZ, S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGEDA BOUT 48 YEARS, 3RD CORSS, GIRIJASHANKAR LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL - 562 106. 2. SRI. ABDUL BASHEEER SAB, S/O LATE PANCHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 3. SRI MEHABOOB PASHA, S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 4. SRI MOHAMED PASHA, S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT SURAGA JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106. BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. 5. SRI. SABJAN SAB, S/O PANCHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANUBI GALI, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL - 562 106. 6. SRI. ABDUL MAZEED SAB, S/O LATE PANCHA SAB AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 7. SRI. AMMER PASHA, S/O LATE PANCHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 8. SRI. ANWAR, S/O LATE PANCHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 8 RESIDING AT SURAGA JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106. BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 9. SRI INAYATHULLA SAB, S/O SABJAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANUBI GALLI, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL - 562 106. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 10. SRI. SYED HAMMED, S/O GHOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 11. SRI. SAMI ULLA, S/O GHOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 12. SRI. JABBAR, S/O GHOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 13. SMT. MUKBALJAN, W/O LATE NURULLA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 10 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT SURAGA JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106. BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 14. SMT. PARVEEN, W/O INNAYATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 15. SRI. ADIL PASHA @ BABU , S/O SABJAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO. 14 AND 15 RESIDING AT BANUBEE GALLI, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL - 562 106, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2020, NOTICE TO R5, R9, R14, R15 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT, R8 R10 & R11 ARE SERVED, VIDE ORDER DATED 13.07.2023, DISMISSED AS ABATED AS AGAINST R2, R6, R7 AND R12) Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:05.12.2018 ON I.A.NO.14 & 15 IN O.S.NO.1565 OF 2006, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.14 & 15 FILED BY THE PETITINER IN O.S.NO.1565 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ANEKAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by defendant No.13, calling in question the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Trial Judge, whereby I.A.Nos.14 and 15 filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the plaintiff, who had already been examined as PW1, and permission to cross-examine him, came to be rejected. 2. The said order is assailed in the present petition. Though this Court had initially granted an interim order, the cause list discloses that the petition has already stood Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 dismissed as abated insofar as respondent Nos.2, 6, 7 and 12 are concerned. 3. It is also forthcoming from the records that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought permission to retire from the case on the ground that he has no instructions from the petitioner. In view of the same, the learned counsel is permitted to retire from the case. The interim order granted earlier is not extended. 4. The principal question that arises for consideration is as to whether, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner and the manner in which the suit has been prosecuted on his behalf, any further indulgence can be shown to permit him to cross-examine PW1. A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 would clearly demonstrate that the learned Trial Judge has assigned cogent reasons, particularly with regard to the persistent absence of the petitioner and his failure to avail the repeated opportunities granted to him for cross-examining PW1. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 5. The learned Trial Judge has recorded that the petitioner had failed to cross-examine PW1 from 11.11.2017 onwards. The matter was adjourned on six occasions to enable the petitioner to cross-examine PW1. Even thereafter, on two further occasions, time was granted by imposing costs and making it clear that the opportunity was being granted finally. Despite such repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed to avail the same, compelling the learned Trial Judge to take the cross-examination of PW1 as nil by order dated 14.06.2018. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.Nos.11 and 12 seeking recall of the said order and permission to cross- examine PW1. The learned Trial Judge, adopting a liberal and indulgent approach, allowed the said applications and once again afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine PW1, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. Even thereafter, the petitioner neither paid the costs nor availed the opportunity to cross-examine PW1. The learned Trial Judge nevertheless granted further time on 24.09.2018 and 07.11.2018. On both these occasions, the petitioner remained absent. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 7. Thus, despite repeated opportunities, including an opportunity granted upon allowing the earlier applications for recall, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any diligence in prosecuting his defence. It was only after a lapse of nearly one year that the petitioner once again came forward with I.A.Nos.14 and 15 seeking permission to cross-examine PW1. The sequence of events, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunities granted by the Trial Court and has, by filing successive applications, contributed to the protraction of the proceedings. 8. The present case is, therefore, a clear instance where repeated indulgence has not resulted in the petitioner prosecuting the proceedings with due diligence. The conduct of the petitioner discloses not merely inadvertence or an isolated lapse, but a consistent pattern of negligence and lack of bona fides in conducting the defence. A litigant who repeatedly fails to avail opportunities granted by the Court cannot, as a matter of right, seek further opportunities by filing successive applications and thereby compel the opposite party to repeatedly face the same stage of the proceedings. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 9. The conduct of the petitioner even before this Court does not warrant any different consideration. The fact that the counsel on record has sought permission to retire on the ground that he has no instructions from the petitioner further indicates the petitioner’s continued lack of diligence in prosecuting the present proceedings. In the circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretionary and supervisory jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 10. The learned Trial Judge has already shown sufficient indulgence by granting repeated opportunities to the petitioner, including by allowing I.A.Nos.11 and 12 subject to payment of costs. Having failed to avail even those opportunities, the petitioner cannot now seek yet another opportunity as a matter of course. Permitting such repeated reopening of the evidence would defeat the very purpose of orderly and expeditious conduct of judicial proceedings. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Trial Judge warranting interference in exercise of the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319892019 NC: 2026:KHC:51092 WP No. 1693 of 2019 jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground for further indulgence. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified