- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 51759 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M.GOWRAMMA W/O B.N.JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A MARADHAGHATTA VILLAGE, KYSAMBHALLI HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DIST, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI M.SHIVANNA S/O LATE R.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.94, KSRTC LAYOUT, CHIKKALLASANDRA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.A.DEVANAND., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BYYANNA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD SMT. BYYAMMA W/O LATE BYYANNA, SINCE DEAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 1. REPRESENTED BY THEIR LR’S B. YOGEESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE BYYANNA, R/A NO.51, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40. 2. SRI. N.S.NARASEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.713, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-79. 3. JAWAHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO.13, LINK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE BANGALORE DIST. AND BANGALORE RURAL DIST CO-OP CENTRAL BANK LTD., H.O NO.6, LAKSHMISADANA, 5TH MAIN ,ROAD BANGALORE-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1-SERVED; R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:13.06.2025) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.15345/2004 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 BY THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL (CCH-22), BY ALOWING THE WRIT PETITION WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G. 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. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 22.10.2019 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.15345/2004 by the learned XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. By the Impugned Order an application under Order III Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the learned Trial Court has been rejected. 2. None appears for the respondent despite service. 3. Given the pendency of the matter for the last six years as well as an order being granted by this court staying Trial Court proceedings, this Court feels it expedient to hear and decide the matter today. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application seeking to recall PW-1 was allowed by the learned Trial Court after gap of 8 ½ years and subsequently PW-1 has been asked to re-examine/cross-examine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this evidence was given by PW-1 in the year 2007. Thereafter an application for recalling of the order was filed in the year 2018. By an order dated 01.02.2018, PW- 1 was directed to be recalled for further cross-examination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now shifted from Bengaluru. She is also aged almost 85 years and that it is not possible for her to come and give evidence in the Court. Hence the application for giving evidence through her close relative her brother has been filed. However without examining the contents of the application, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application. 6. The record reflects that the suit was filed in the year 2004 for declaration and permanent injunction. Although plaintiffwas examined-in-chief as PW-1 in the year 2007, an applicationfiled by legal representatives of Defendant to recall for cross-examination, was allowed by learned Trial Court by its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 order dated 01.02.2018. In view of the fact that recall application was allowed after 11 years, it was apposite that the learned Trial Court to view the age of the petitioner at the time of allowing the application. 7. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be filing an application for leading evidence through a local Court Commissioner to be present at the residence of the petitioner for the purposes of her cross examination. 8. Undisputably, the plaintiff is almost 85 years old. She is stated to be is suffering from several old age related issues and hence is not able to come to Court. It would therefore be in the interest of justice that PW-1 is examined at her home or at any place convenient in the vicinity by the means of a local commissioner. 9. Accordingly the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application for examination ofPW- 1. However, since the request for recall is at the instance of the Defendant, the costs for such commissioner shall be borne by the Respondent. Needless to add that learned Trial Court is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3416 WP No. 51759 of 2019 requested to give a sympathetic view of the matter, given the petitioner is more than 85 years old and the matter is pending for more than twenty years. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recording of the evidence should be conducted in a time bound manner. The petitioner shall make this request before the learned Trial Court. 11. The rights and contentions of both the parties are left open to be adjudicated before the learned Trial Court. 12. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA