- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31479 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. G.K. KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O KENDAPPA, R/O BOMMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMAPPA S/O LATE YERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O BOMMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537 2. YARAPPA S/O LATE KADURAPPA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O BOMMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537 3. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE KADURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O BOMMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2026) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 PASSED IN FDP NO.10/2021 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHALLAKERE (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by respondent No.3 in FDP No.10/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere is directed against the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, whereby the application-I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner/respondent No.3 under Section 151 CPC for permission to adduce evidence was rejected by the trial Court. 2. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 27.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.94/2003 and confirmed in R.A.No.64/2009 and RSA No.525/2012 by this Court, respondent No.1 instituted Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.10/2021. During the pendency of which, the petitioner claiming to be a pendente lite - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 purchaser got himself impleaded as additional respondent No.3 to the Final Decree Proceedings. Upon impleadment, the petitioner filed statement of objections and contested the Final Decree Proceedings and filed two applications viz. I.A.No.5 under Section 151 CPC for permission to adduce evidence and I.A.No.6 for permission to produce documents. Both the said applications having been opposed by respondent No.1, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned common order allowing I.A.No.6 permitting the petitioner to produce documents but rejected IAs by declining to grant him permission to adduce evidence. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the sole ground on which the trial Court has refused to grant permission in favour of the petitioner to adduce oral evidence is by coming to the conclusion that oral evidence was not required to be adduced in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In this context, the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that after - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 having permitted the petitioner to produce documents, it was essential that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to adduce oral evidence in support of his claim and merely because the petitioner was a pendente lite purchaser, the said circumstance could not have been made the basis to decline grant of permission to lead oral evidence in favour of the petitioner especially when the documents produced by the petitioner were permitted to be received on record. At any rate, since respondent No.1 would be entitled to cross examine PW.1, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No. 1 if the petitioner is permitted to adduce oral evidence, particularly when the impugned order allowing I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioner and permitting production of documents has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent No.1, who has not chosen to challenge the said order on I.A.No.6. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.5 deserves to be set aside and the said application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 issuing certain directions for expeditious disposal of the proceedings. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to rejecting I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to adduce evidence subject to the condition that the petitioner shall adduce such evidence and examine himself on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. iv) The parties shall co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Final Decree Proceedings. v) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.1 to cross-examine the petitioner on all aspects of the matter. vi) The trial Court is directed to conclude and dispose of the Final Decree Proceedings within - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:685 WP No. 31479 of 2025 a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. viii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9