- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2092 WP No. 34467 of 2024 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. 34467 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. APARNA KANAMPALLI W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 4TH CROSS EAST LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. A.G RAMANATH MAJOR R/AT VENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANDIRA, PETE BEEDI, ARAKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 213 2. SRI B. C. NAGESH SON OF B. S. CHANRASHEKARIAH MAJOR R/AT 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, K. R. EXTENSION, TIPTUR – 572 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE ORDER DTD. 27.11.2024 ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IA NO. 26 IN O.S.NO. 1795 OF 2013 (ANNX-H) ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2092 WP No. 34467 of 2024 XXVI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 12) FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF. 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 defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1795/2013 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.26, whereby the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XVIII Rules 1 and 2 CPC for a direction to petitioner- defendant No.4 to tender himself for cross-examination was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned Senior 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 the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.4 and other defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2092 WP No. 34467 of 2024 arrayed as defendant No.4 has contested the suit and has filed his written statement. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the present application for a direction to the petitioner -defendant No.4, to tender himself for cross-examination and for permission to cross examine defendant No.4 in the transformed circumstances. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the affidavit in support of the application will indicate that except narrating the sequence of events and the various dates on which evidence were recorded by the trial Court, the respondents-plaintiffs did not make out any valid or sufficient ground as to how they would be entitled to summon the petitioner- defendant No.4 for cross examination, particularly, when the petitioner did not examine himself as a witness nor file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief in the instant case. 5. In this context, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that the petitioner would not be adducing oral evidence either through herself or through her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2092 WP No. 34467 of 2024 authorized representative. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the specific stand of the petitioner that she would not lead oral evidence either by examining herself or her authorized representatives, the trial Court clearly fell in error in directing the petitioner to be presented for cross-examination without appreciating that the petitioner cannot be compelled to tender herself for cross-examination. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents may be permitted to request the trial Court to draw inference/adverse inference against the petitioner-defendant No.4 for not stepping into the witness box or adducing any oral evidence. The aforesaid submission is placed on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of I.A.No.26 by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2092 WP No. 34467 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 27.11.2024 in I.A.No.26 in O.S.No.1795/2013 on the file of XXVI City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.26 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVIII Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking for a direction to petitioner- defendant No.4 to tender himself for cross-examination is hereby disposed of. iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to adduce oral evidence either by examining herself or her authorized representative in the suit. v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs to request the trial Court to draw inference/adverse inference as permissible in law against the petitioner-defendant No.4 for not stepping into the witness box or leading oral evidence. vi) If such a request is made, the Trial Court shall hear both sides and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82