- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16144 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VEERANNA S/O. CHIKKABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. SRI VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SRI K. V. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT KESTHUR VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 4. SMT. KUMARI K. V. S/O. HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 2ND STAGE KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI VIJAY KUMAR K. S/O. B. K. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KESTHUR VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST-561 203 KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2. SMT. K. V. SAVITHA W/O. SRI BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KIRAN POULTRY FARM KOLUR MARALENAHALLI ROAD KOLUR ANATHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. V. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT DODDABALLAPUR ON I.A. NO.6 AND 7 IN O.S. NO.369/2021 DATED 17.03.2025 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S No.369/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Doddaballapura, is directed against the impugned common order passed on I.A Nos.VI and VII, whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner, defendant No.3 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') to recall DW.1 for further examination-in-chief and Order VIII Rule 1A clause (3) of the CPC for permission to produce documents was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff against the petitioners - defendants Nos.1 to 4 and another for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, After completion of plaintiff's evidence, the petitioner No.3 examined himself as DW.1 and was cross- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 examined by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant applications seeking permission to recall DW.1 and to produce additional documents. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications by adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, which is impermissible in law while considering an application for recalling witness for further evidence and for permission to produce documents. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to produce additional documents and to reopen the case by recalling DW.1 for further examination- in-chief. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice-oriented approach and set aside the impugned order and allow the applications by issuing certain directions. 4. Insofar as the contention urged by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the document dated 25.02.2020, which is sought to be produced by the petitioners by recalling DW.1 is not relevant and a void document is concerned, the said contention would necessarily have to be considered by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 Trial Court at the time of appreciating the evidence and not at the stage of considering an application to recall DW-1 and for production of documents and as such, the said contention cannot be accepted. 5. 5. Insofar as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shubhkaran Singh Vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors. - 2025 INSC 628 is concerned, in the said judgment, the Apex Court has in fact held that it is permissible to grant an opportunity to examine or cross-examine or re-examine a witness in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and the said permission is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a specific case on hand, the petitioners had specifically stated in the written statement at the earliest point in time that in addition to that there was an agreement executed on 25.02.2020 in favour of one Vijay Kumar, which is now sought to be produced by the petitioners along with the instant application and as such, I am of the view that the Trial Court fell in error in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners and consequently, even this contention cannot be accepted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10296 WP No. 16144 of 2025 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i). Petition is hereby allowed. (ii). The impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.VI and VII in O.S. No.369/2021 dated 17.03.2025 by the Trial Court is set aside. I.A Nos.VI and VII are hereby allowed. (iii). The petitioners are directed to complete the further examination-in-chief of DW.1 on the next date of hearing of the suit which currently stands posted on 05.03.2026 without seeking any unnecessary adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent No.1 - plaintiff to cross examine DW.1. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMA/BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6