- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 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. 38275 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE V.R.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT VAKKALERI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MARKANDAPPA. A.R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT VAKKALERI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 2. SRI. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ANKATATTAHALLI, CHETAMANGALA HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O B.V. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BHODANAHOSAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HONNAGONDANA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 067. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 4. SMT. V.R. JAYAMMA D/O LATE B.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT VAKKALERI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 5. SMT. MANJAMMA D/O LATE B.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BHODANAHOSAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HONNAGONDANA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 067. 6. SMT. MANJULA.V W/O LATE V. CHANDRAIAH D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 14TH CROSS, KARANJIKATTE, KOLAR TOWN - 563 101. 7. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE B.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT VAKKALERI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FIELD UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.12.2025, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, IN OS NO. 454/2021, PASSED ON IA-8, APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, IA-9, APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND IA-10, UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY DISMISSING THE IAS 8, 9 AND 10, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.454/2021 on the file of III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, is directed against the impugned order dated 01.12.2025, whereby the applications I.A.Nos.8 to 10 filed by the plaintiff No.4 to reopen the case and for permission to lead further evidence by further cross- examining PW-1 was allowed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents – plaintiffs are unnecessarily protracting the proceedings by repeatedly filing the applications and the trial court committed an error in showing indulgence in favour of the plaintiffs by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 4. In this context, it is relevant to extract the impugned order passed by the trial court in the aforesaid applications as hereunder:- “ Counsel for the plaintiff No.4 filed IA No.8 U/sec. 151 of CPC, IA.No.9 Under order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 CPC and IA.No.10 Application under Section 151 of CPC for reopen the case for further chief examination of PW1. Hence pray to allow the application. In the annexed affidavit the applicant stated that, earlier the stage was fixed by this Hon’ble Court for further chief examination of PW.1. But due to her personal inconvenience, misplace of documents and other reasons. She was unable to furnish few important documents on her behalf. Recently she has traced the above said document and recently obtained few documents by the concerned authority. Those documents are very much necessary to adjudicate the matter. But this Court was pleased to closed her further chief examination as nil and posted the case for next stage. As such file the annexed application to reopen the case and to file necessary recall application on her behalf. If this Court is not allowed her annexed application will be put to irreparable loss and injury and hardship, on the contrary no hardship would be caused to the other side. Hence allow the application. Per contra, the defendant No.2 filed the objection and contended that on 28-11-2024, 04-12-2024, 10-12-2024, 17- 12-2024 the defendants have prays time for adduce their evidence on 16-01-2025, the DW-1 has been examined and the documents have been marked on his behalf and the case is posted for cross examination of DW-1. On 29-01-2025, 06- 02-2025, 18-02-2025, 05-03-2025, 10-03-2025, 20-03-2025, though DW-1 present, the counsel for the plaintiffs seeks time for cross examination of DW-1, on 28-04-2025 the DW-1 was present and the cost has been imposed by this Hon'ble court and posted for cross of DW-1, on 05-06- 2025 the DW-1 was present, but the plaintiff counsel seeks time for cross examination of DW-1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 On 12-06-2025 the counsel for plaintiff was partly cross examined the DW-1 and the case is posted for further cross of DW-1, later on 30-06-2025, the DW-1 present and the counsel for the plaintiff seeks time for further cross examination the prayer was rejected by this Hon’ble court and posted for further defendant evidence. Later on the case was posted for arguments and on 16-09-2025 the arguments on the plaintiffs side was heard by this Hon’ble court and the case is posted for arguments on defendants side and finally on 12-11-2025 the arguments was been canvassed on the side of defendant No.2 and the case is posted for reply on the side of plaintiff side, without giving reply to the arguments of the defendants the plaintiffs have come up with these application to fill up lacuna, which is not maintainable under law and the applications filed by the plaintiffs needs to be dismissed. Hence dismiss the application. Heard arguments. This is the suit for partition and separate possession and now the matter post for arguments ,even if the plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents, the defendant No.2 has got right to cross examine the witness. Therefore giving one more opportunity to the applicant will not cause any hardship moreover in order to avoid multiplicity in the proceeding and in the interest of justice I pass the following, ORDERS The application filed IA No.8 U/sec. 151 of CPC, IA.No.9 Under order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC and IA.No.10 Application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to re open the case and for further chief of PW1 is here by allowed on cost of Rs.600/-, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 Advocate for plaintiff filed application Under order 7 Rule 14 A R/w Sec 151 CPC and list with documents. For objection to IA.11 by 04.12.2025.” 5. As can be seen from the aforesaid impugned order, the trial court has exercised its discretion in granting one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence bearing in mind the nature of the suit, which is one for partition and separate possession of suit schedule immovable property and other valuable proprietary and possessory rights involved in the suit, it would be necessary to grant one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner by adopting a justice oriented approach. At any rate, since the petitioner-defendant would be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs in respect of the additional evidence sought to be produced by them, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-defendant, if the plaintiffs are directed to adduce further evidence. 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 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:967 WP No. 38275 of 2025 Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the trial court. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner not only to cross-examine PW-1 with reference to the additional evidence but the defendants are also permitted to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence. (iii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.