[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr D Chethan Kumar vs Smt Savithramma on 17 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
WP No. 15387 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 15387 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. D. CHETHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE DEVARAJEGOWDA
RESIDENTS OF BYRAPURA
KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218.
2. SMT. H.D. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O LATE DEVARAJEGOWDA
RESIDENTS OF BYRAPURA
KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.M. MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.)
Digitally signed AND:
by NANDINI M
S
Location: HIGH 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
COURT OF W/O SRI DASEGOWDA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
HOTHANAHALLYPURA
KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218.
2. SMT. SUNANDA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KABBATTHI, KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 210.
3. UDAY KUMAR
S/O KALASEGOWDA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
WP No. 15387 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NAYAKARAHALLI, KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 210.
4. SRIDHAR N.K
S/O KALASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NAYAKARAHALLI KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 210.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA BABU B.K, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 18.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO. 05/2012 VIDE ANNX-G
BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ALUR
THE IA NO. XXX UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND IA NO. XXXI
UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 OF CPC FOR SEEKING TO REOPEN THE
CASE AND RE CALLED PW1 FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS / PETITIONERS DTD 16.01.2023
PRODUCED AT ANNX-D AND E PRAYER FOR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant nos.1 & 2 are before this Court in this writ
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with
a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023 passed on
IA.nos.30 & 31 filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order
XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, respectively, in O.S.No.5/2012 by the
Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Alur.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
HC-KAR
3. Suit in O.S.No.5/2012 is filed by the respondents herein
before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Alur in Hassan District,
seeking the relief of declaration, possession and permanent
injunction.
4. In the said suit, defendant nos.1 & 2 have filed written
statement and have opposed the suit claim.
5. When the suit was at the stage of defendants' evidence,
IA.nos.30 & 31 were filed by the defendants with prayer to re-
open the stage of the case and recall PW-1 for his further
cross-examination.
6. Applications filed on behalf of the defendants was
opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections.
7. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the
said applications viz., IA.nos.30 & 31. Aggrieved by the same,
defendant nos.1 & 2 are before this Court.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that if an opportunity to
further cross-examine PW-1 is not granted to the defendants,
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
HC-KAR
the case of the defendants is likely to be prejudiced. On the
other hand, no prejudice would caused to the plaintiffs and the
hardship caused to them can be compensated monetarily.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents
has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that
the Trial Court having referred to the judgment in the case of
RAMRATI VS MANGE RAM (DEAD BY LRS) - (2016)11 SCC
296, has rightly rejected IA.nos.30 & 31. PW-1 has been
extensively cross-examined by the defendants. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
10. The plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration,
possession and permanent injunction in the present suit. The
suit schedule property is land measuring 4 acres situated at
Alur village in Hassan District.
11. During the course of trial, plaintiff no.2 - Savithramma
has been examined as PW-1. After she was cross-examined by
the defendants, additional affidavit was filed in lieu of further
examination-in-chief. Thereafter, the defendants had further
cross-examined PW-1. After the Trial Court had closed
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
HC-KAR
plaintiffs' evidence, it appears that defendant no.2 was
examined as DW-1 and when the suit at the stage of his cross-
examination, the present applications were filed with prayers to
re-open the stage of the case and permit the defendants to
further cross-examine PW-1.
12. In the affidavit which is filed in support of the application,
it is stated that in view of the illness of the advocate who was
appearing for the defendants earlier, they had engaged the
services of another advocate, who after going through the case
papers had advised them that further cross-examination of
PW-1 is required because he was not effectively cross-
examined by the earlier advocate.
13. The Trial Court placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramrati's case supra, wherein the
request made to recall a witness for further elaboration of the
left out points, was rejected, has passed the impugned order.
14. In the present case, the request made by the defendants
to further cross-examine PW-1 is not for further elaboration of
the left out points. In the affidavit which is filed in support of
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
HC-KAR
the application seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-
examination, it is specifically stated that the earlier advocate
had not cross-examined PW-1 on certain aspects of the matter
like limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, etc., and it is
under these circumstances, further cross-examination of PW-1
is required. In view of the same, the Trial Court was not
justified in rejecting IA.nos.30 & 31 for the reason stated in the
order impugned.
15. If an opportunity of further cross-examination of PW-1 is
granted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, and on
the other hand, having regard to the relief sought for in the
suit, if proper opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 is not
granted to the defendants, their case may be prejudiced.
Inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs can be compensated by
imposing appropriate costs on the defendants while granting
the prayer made in the applications. Accordingly, the following
order:
16. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
18.04.2023 passed on IA.nos.30 & 31 filed under Section 151
CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, respectively, in
NC: 2025:KHC:53942
HC-KAR
O.S.No.5/2012 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Alur, is set
aside. Consequently, the prayers made in IA.nos.30 & 31 are
granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. The
defendants shall further cross-examine PW-1 on the date on
which he keeps himself present before the Trial Court for the
purpose of cross-examination, without seeking any further
adjournment, and the cross-examination shall be completed on
the very same day. The costs imposed shall be paid by the
defendants to the plaintiffs before the Trial Court on the next
date of hearing.
17. Since the suit is of the year 2012, the Trial Court shall
expedite the trial of the suit and dispose of the same on merits,
as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the period of
one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
