- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18992 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. H. VEERABHADRAIAH, SON OF LATE HALAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.903, BSK 6TH STAGE, GANKALLU VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE HALAGAPPA, WIFE OF DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. GOLLAHALLI, CHIKKANAHALLI POST, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 130. …PETITIONERS (BY MISS. ARCHANA T. N. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. HONNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE HALAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.142, GANAKALLU, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, 11TH BLOCK, B.D.A. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 060. 2. SMT. CHIKKAMMA.G.H, DAUGHTER OF HALAGAPPA, WIFE OF LATE MAHADEVA, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, NEAR WATER TANK, BANNALLI VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 099. 3. SRI. RAJU, SON OF LATE HALAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.142, GANAKALLU, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, 11TH BLOCK, B.D.A. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060. 4. SRI. BHADRAIAH, SON OF LATE HALAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.142, GANAKALLU, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, 11TH BLOCK, B.D.A. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060. 5. SMT. MANJULA G.H. DAUGHTER OF LATE HALAGAPPA, WIFE OF BEERESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.772, GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062. 6. SMT. MAHADEVI G.H. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE HALAGAPPA, WIFE OF RAVI, RESIDING AT NO.23, MUDDANAPALYA, CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST, THAVAREKERE, BENGALURU - 562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.N.ARAKESWARA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED IN IA NO.15 & 16 IN O.S 2698/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH- 26) ANNEXURE-H; B) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; C) AND THIS WRIT PETITION MAY BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.2698/2014 is directed against the impugned orders passed on IA Nos.15 and 16, in O.S.No.2698/2014 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-26), Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs to reopen the case and for permission to adduce further evidence were allowed by the Trial Court by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A.No.XV & XVI I.As.No.XV & XVI are filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case and permit the first plaintiff to lead the evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 2. In the affidavits annexed to the applications, plaintiff No.1 has contended that she has married Halagappa after the death of his first wife Chikkamma and though the burden of proving her marriage with Halagappa during the lifetime of his first wife is on defendants No.1 & 2 as per issue No.6, she felt it fit to enter into the witness box and depose it before the court for which it is necessary to permit her to lead evidence. 3. The applications are seriously objected by the defendants No.1 & 2 on multiple grounds. It is contended by the defendants that the applications are filed by suppressing the true facts belatedly after conclusion of the arguments and when the case is set for reply arguments of the plaintiffs without any justifiable reason. It is contended that the applications are filed to fill up the lacuna with an intention to improvise the case of the plaintiffs. They have also contended that the plaintiffs are not diligent in prosecuting the case. The defendants have meticulously revealed the various stages of the case and in respect of the repeated adjournments availed by the plaintiffs on several hearing dates with complete particulars of the dates. The defendants have also contended that the plaintiffs are trying to introduce a new case without any pleading and therefore they cannot invoke the inherent powers of the court to permit to lead evidence of plaintiff No.1. 4. Heard the arguments. 5. The point for determination of the Court is- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to reopen the case and examine plaintiff No.1? 6. Finding of this Court on the above point is in the affirmative, for the following:- - : R E A S O N S : - 7. This is the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff is the second wife of Halagappa and plaintiff No.2 to 6 are her children through Halagappa. It is also pleaded that defendants are children of Halagappa through his first wife Chikkamma. The defendants in the written statement have taken up a contention that Halagappa married the first plaintiff during the lifetime of his first wife Chikkamma and therefore the plaintiffs No.2 to 6 being the illegitimate children of Halagappa, they have no right to claim share in the suit schedule properties.Therefore, the court has framed issue No.3, casting burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the first plaintiff is the wife of late Halagappa and plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are her children through Halagappa. Similarly issue No.6 is framed casting burden on the defendants to prove that Halagappa married the first plaintiff Honnamma during the lifetime of his first wife Chikkamma. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants No.1 & 2 in the present case, the application is filed by the plaintiffs to reopen the case after completion of the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants and when the matter is set for reply argument of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 the plaintiffs. Order 17 CPC mandates that once the trial has commenced the trial shall conclude as far as possible on day-to-day basis. Therefore, when the evidence has already been completed and the court had already heard the case on merits partially, normally, the parties cannot be allowed to reopen the case to lead further evidence. It is also true that the plaintiffs have taken a number of adjournments earlier and the case pertains to the year 2014. But, in the present case, the issues involved in the suit are not only restricted to property rights, but also the status of the parties. In other words, for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties over the suit schedule properties, the court is required to decide the legitimacy or otherwise of the plaintiffs No.2 to 6. In a case of this nature, the courts are expected to be very sensitive before recording a finding with regard to the legitimacy of the parties. 9. As observed above, according to the case of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff married late Halagappa after the death of his first wife Chikkamma. On the other hand, according to the defendants, she married Halagappa during the lifetime of Chikkamma. The court is required to give a finding in this regard and therefore issue No.3 & 6 are framed casting burden on both the parties. In order to decide these issues, the parties have not given any details of the date of marriage of the first plaintiff with Halagappa. Though the defendants No.1 & 2 have produced Ex.D31 death certificate of Chikkamma to show that she died on 21.12.1990 and the marriage of the first plaintiff was held - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 with Halagappa earlier to that, Ex.D31 is seriously disputed by the plaintiffs contending that for the alleged death of Chikkamma on 21.12.1990, the death certificate is registered and obtained on 05.05.2014 after filing of this suit. In the written statement also, the defendants have neither pleaded the date of marriage of first plaintiff Halagappa or the date of death of Chikkamma. Hence, there was no opportunity to the plaintiffs to give specific evidence with regard to this disputed fact. Therefore, the court expects clear evidence to record a finding with regard to the status of the plaintiffs. Though a civil suit will be normally decided on preponderance of probabilities, the courts are required to be very cautious while declaring the legitimacy or otherwise of the parties. If the issue is only restricted to the property rights, this court would have rejected the application. But, the situation in the present case is otherwise. 10. Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC empowers the court at any stage of the suit to recall any witness or examine a witness. Though this is not a suo-motto step taken by the court, during the course of arguments, the court also felt that further evidence is required to record a definite finding with regard to the relationship of the parties and their status. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, considering this case as an exceptional case, it is proper to permit the plaintiffs to lead evidence of first plaintiff, which would help the court for recording a definite finding with regard to the disputed status of the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 11. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has strongly contended that the intention of the plaintiffs is to introduce a new case by examining plaintiff No.1. Needless to mention that the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings. Even if any evidence is given beyond the pleadings, it is inadmissible. Merely because there is possibility of going beyond the case of the parties, the Court cannot reject the permission to the plaintiffs to lead the evidence of plaintiff No.1. 12. It is further contended on behalf of the defendants that application is filed to fill up the lacuna. It is true that if the application was filed in a case wherein only the property dispute is involved, the court would have considered the application from another angle also. But, as stated above, the further evidence would help the court to properly adjudicate the disputed issues. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate to permit the plaintiffs to lead the evidence of plaintiff No.1. The delay caused can be compensated by awarding cost. On these observations, above point is answered in the affirmative and the following orders passed:- O R D E R I.A.No.XV & XVI filed by the plaintiffs U/S 151 CPC are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. Case is reopened. The plaintiffs are permitted to lead the evidence of plaintiff No.1.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that since the petitioners would have an opportunity to not only cross-examine plaintiff No.1 in relation to the additional oral and documentary evidence, the petitioners would also be entitled to adduce additional defence evidence and as such, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the impugned order, which permitted the respondents to lead further evidence by reopening the case. 4. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4641 WP No. 18992 of 2025 Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45