- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2009 WP No. 34240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34240 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. B. N. ASHA, D/O LATE P. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO 252, 1ST BOLCK, 3RD CROSS, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 058 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKAR KRISHNA B.R., FOR SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATES) AND: SRI S. KESHAVA RAO S/O LATE SRINIVAS RAO AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO. 252 (PORTION), 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE C/RESPONDENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 3831/2009 ON IA NO. XXXVI TO XXXVIII Y THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2009 WP No. 34240 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.3831/2009 against the impugned common order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the applications, I.A.Nos.XXXVI to XXXVIII filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to reopen the case, to produce documents and for permission to adduce further evidence were rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking ejectment against the respondent-defendant, both parties have adduced evidence and at the state of final arguments, the petitioner filed the instant applications, which were rejected by the Trial Court. In this context, the Trial Court committed an error in referring to the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, without appreciating that in the interest of justice one more opportunity deserves to be granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce further evidence. At any rate, since the respondent-defendant would be entitled to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2009 WP No. 34240 of 2025 cross-examine PW.1 with reference to additional evidence, it cannot be said that prejudice would be caused to the defendant if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner-plaintiff. Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff, I deem it just and appropriate to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders and also allow the applications, I.A.Nos.36 to 38 by issuing certain directions. 4. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner-plaintiff to the defendant before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. (ii) The impugned common order dated 18.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.3831/2009 on I.A.Nos.XXXVI to XXXVIII by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCh-15), Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2009 WP No. 34240 of 2025 (iii) Consequently, I.A.Nos.XXXVI to XXXVIII are allowed. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent not only to cross-examine PW.1 on the evidence, but also to adduce additional defendant’s evidence, if they so desire. (v) 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 BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20