- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.7451 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJENDRA N, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT CHANDAGALA FRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN – 571 438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/3, 5TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 009. 2. SRI. NARAYANA, S/O JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI. N. SOMASHEKAR, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT. NAGAMANNI, D/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT CHANDAGALA FRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.65/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA IN DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.4/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. A memo for dispensation has been filed by the petitioner seeking dispensation of notice to Respondents Nos.2 to 4 stating that they are not necessary parties to the petition. 2. Although the memo does not contain any averments, learned counsel for the petitioner orally contends that challenge to the present petition is to an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 for recalling PW1 and PW2 for cross- examination. He submits that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the plaint and that they are not contesting this application. Learned counsel for the respondents affirms his contention. 3. In view thereof, the memo for dispensation is allowed. 4. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 23.03.2022 in O.S.No.65/2015 passed by learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, Mandya (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, an application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.4 under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was dismissed. The learned Trial Court also directed that further evidence of defendants be taken as closed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 2018. However, by an application filed by Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, PW1 was recalled and further evidence was led. Subsequently, time to cross-examine the plaintiff was taken by Petitioner/Defendant No.4 on 05.04.2021, which time was not granted. Thereafter the Petitioner/Defendant No.4 filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW1 for further cross examination. However, since the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was not present - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 on that day, the matter was adjourned. On the subsequent date, the application of the petitioner was dismissed on account of non-compliance of service of the application to the Plaintiff/Respondent. Learned counsel thus submits that no objections were filed by the respondent and no reasoned speaking order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, on the other hand submits that he has still not received a copy of the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. However, he confirms that he has received a copy of the paper book. Concededly, a copy of the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC has been placed on record by the petitioner before this Court as Annexure-D. 6. A perusal of the order sheet in the present case shows that the learned Trial Court had permitted the Respondent/Plaintiff to lead further evidence and mark additional documents by its order dated 27.11.2021. Thereafter the matter was taken up for evidence of Petitioner/Defendant. The order sheet also reflects that the matter was listed every few weeks and adjournments were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 taken including for the reason that advocate had been tested positive for COVID-19. 7. It is apposite to set out the relevant orders dated 03.01.2022, 18.01.2022, 14.02.2022 in this behalf. “03.01.2022 Case is called out. No representation on behalf of defendants. Defendant No.4 is present and sought an adjournment submitting that his counsel is not in station. Heard and time is granted on cost of Rs.200/- and that shall be paid to Legal Service Authority. In view of request case is adjourned for further evidence of defendants as last chance, by 18.01.2022. 18.01.2022 Case is called out. In view of the SOP dated 14.01.2022 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, this case is adjourned for further evidence of defendants as last chance. Call on 14.02.2022. 14.02.2022 Case is called out. None appeared except defendant No.4. The said defendant No.4 sought an adjournment submitting that his advocate has been tested Covid positive. In view of request case is adjourned for further evidence of defendant as last chance, by 04.03.2022”. [Emphasis supplied] - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 8. On 04.03.2022, an application for recalling of PW1 was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant. On that date it was noted that copies have not been served. The said order is extracted below: “Case is called out. The defendant no.4 is present and filed application u/s.151 of CPC., and U/o 18 Rule 17 of CPC., to reopen the case and to recall the PW1 for cross examination. Copies have not been served. It is directed to serve the copies. For objections, if any, by 23.03.2022”. 9. Thereafter by its order dated 23.03.2022, the learned Trial Court while recording that the defendant has not complied with the order dated 04.03.2022 (for service of the application), has rejected the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, as well as taken further evidence of the defendants as closed. 10. This Court by its order dated 13.04.2022 had stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. The order is continued as is since then. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity to make submissions on his application and that non speaking order was passed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 12. A perusal of the order sheet also shows that his application was filed during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic. The functioning of the Court was limited during that period. The order sheet also reflects that the advocate representing the petitioner/defendant had tested positive for COVID-19. It is thus clear that the petitioner was unable to defend his case during this period. 13. In addition, the Impugned Order also does not set out any reasons for dismissal of this application. 14. It is settled law that any order of a Court must contain findings. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta1 has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is reproduced below:- “11. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is below:- "8. "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief. in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court's judgment] not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders. Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742: (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA)] observed: (WLR p. 750 G). 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." [Emphasis supplied] 15. The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.2. The relevant extract is set out below: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision- making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5463 WP No. 7451 of 2022 reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." [Emphasis supplied] 16. No doubt the petitioner had taken additional time in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will take only one opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff if the application is allowed. This suggestion is accepted by learned counsel for the respondent. 17. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to permit the petitioner to cross examine PW1 on one date alone. The respondent is also permitted to re-examine, if requisite, after the cross examination is over, and on the same date. Both the parties submit that they will not take any unnecessary adjournment before the Trial Court. 18. The petition is disposed of with the above observation, subject to pay of cost in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA