- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010656932026 NC: 2026:KHC:53160 WP No. 30202 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30202 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA W/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT. MOTTEDODDI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 159. 3. SMT. JAYARATHNAMMA D/O LATE LINGAIAH, W/O SHIVASHANKAR, MAJOR, AREKALDODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUMUKH GOWDA M.J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010656932026 NC: 2026:KHC:53160 WP No. 30202 of 2026 2. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 3. SRI. JAYARAMU S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT. ARALALUSANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117. 4. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O RADHAKRISHNA T.D., D/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT THUNGANI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117. 5. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT ARALALUSANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 571 428. 6. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O GOPI, D/O LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT ACHELALU VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010656932026 NC: 2026:KHC:53160 WP No. 30202 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COURT OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT AT RAMANAGARA ON I.A. NO.19 IN O.S. NO.204/1993, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.19 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER This petition is filed impugning the order dated 24.08.2026 passed on I.A. No.19, whereby the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to recall DW1 for the purpose of further cross- examination, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that certain questions, based on the averments in the written statement, were not put to DW1, thereby necessitating the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010656932026 NC: 2026:KHC:53160 WP No. 30202 of 2026 filing of the impugned application seeking an opportunity to further cross-examine DW1. 3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. From a perusal of the application, it is stated that recall of DW1 is necessitated for putting certain questions to the witness. It is also submitted that the questions sought to be put to DW1 relate to the pleadings in the written statement. However, no reasons are assigned as to why such questions were not put to DW1 when an opportunity to cross-examine the witness was available. Moreover, the impugned application has been filed when the suit was set down for final arguments. 5. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, has observed that the suit is more than 30 years old, and that recalling DW1 for further cross-examination would further delay the disposal of the suit. Upon examination of the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, this Court is of the opinion that the suit is of the year 1993 and the impugned application would - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010656932026 NC: 2026:KHC:53160 WP No. 30202 of 2026 only further contribute to the delay in its disposal, which cannot be entertained. 5.1 Even if the questions sought to be put are based on the pleadings in the written statement, there is no reason as to why such questions were not put in the course of cross- examination of DW1. Recall of a witness cannot be permitted merely at the asking of a party unless justifiable grounds are made out. In the present case, no such grounds or sufficient cause are made out. 6. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14