Smt. Bhagya Latha v. Thomas Sathyadas

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025WP/22328/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of witness PW-1; further cross-examination; last/final opportunity; reopening of evidence; Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Article 227 writ jurisdiction; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; 2025; O.S.No.900/2011 Tumakuru; no adjournment direction; three-month timeline to conclude suit; cost Rs.500/- by trial Court.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity granted to the petitioner to complete further cross-examination of PW-1 on the day fixed by the trial Court; trial Court directed not to grant any adjournment for the cross-examination and to endeavour to conclude the proceedings within three months after its conclusion; writ petition disposed of accordingly (no express order setting aside or allowing I.A.Nos.11 & 12) ¶¶64

Smt. Bhagya Latha Vs Thomas Sathyadas — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.10.2022 rejecting I.A.Nos.11 and 12 (seeking reopening of the plaintiff's evidence and recall of PW-1 for cross-examination in O.S.No.900/2011) should be set aside and one opportunity granted to the petitioner-defendant No.3 to complete the cross-examination of PW-1

¶¶28

Court's answer

One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to complete the cross-examination by further cross-examination of PW.1 on the particular day fixed by the trial Court

¶¶55

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court shall not grant even a day's adjournment on whatever score for cross-examination of PW.1, and after the cross-examination may regulate its own procedure and take the suit to its logical conclusion

¶¶57

Key takeaways

Since the suit is of the year 2011, to infuse finality the trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within three months after the conclusion of the cross-examination of PW.1ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M. Nagaprasanna, J.) disposes of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 29.10.2022 of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru in O.S.No.900/2011 — a 2011 suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and separate possession — rejecting I.A.Nos.11 & 12 of defendant No.3 under Section 151 CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen the plaintiff's evidence and recall PW-1 for cross-examination. Earlier applications by defendant Nos.2 & 3 (03-09-2022) had been allowed and PW-1 recalled on 13-09-2022, but the defendants failed to cross-examine; the trial Court had also rejected the fresh applications with cost of Rs.500/-. Held: one final opportunity granted to complete further cross-examination of PW-1 on the day fixed by the trial Court, which shall not grant even a day's adjournment and shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within three months after conclusion of that cross-examination.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22328 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHAGYA LATHA, W/O LAZAR JAIVEER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC:RTD.EMPLOYEE, R/O SADEPALYA, SIRAGATE, TUMAKURU – 572 106.

¶9

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High THOMAS SATHYADAS, Court of Karnataka S/O LATE D.JOHN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC:RTD. EMPLOYEE OF V.I.S.P., R/O NO.H-28, TILED HOUSE, NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 REJECTING I.A.NO.11 AND I.A.NO.12 SEEKING TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO RECALL PW1 FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.900/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 2^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION; ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER I.A.NO.11 AND I.A.NO.12 RESPECTIVELY SEEKING TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO RECALL THE PW1 FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.900/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 2^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeing the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

"1. Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order dated 29.10.2022 rejecting I.A.No.11 & I.A.No.12 seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall PW1 for the cross examination of the petitioner in O.S.No.900/2011 pending on the file of Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru produced as ANNEXURE-G to the writ petition.

¶29

Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction allowing the applications made by the petitioner under I.A.No.11 & I.A.No.12 respectively seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall the PW1 for the cross examination of the petitioner in O.S.No.900/2011 pending on the file of Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru.

¶30

Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems it proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.

¶31

Award the cost of this proceeding."

¶32

Heard Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ravindranath M, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner-defendant No.3 is before this Court

¶36

on the score that the application seeking recall of PW.1 was denied on an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the petitioner would not drag the proceedings, he would have no objection for grant of one opportunity. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order:

¶38

" REASONS

¶39

Point No.1: In this case, the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also for partition against the defendants. That the Matter is posted for defendant Side evidence.

¶40

Along with applications, applicant/plaintiff has filed sworn affidavits separately stating that, on that day he could not contact her counsel and give instructions to him to cross examine PW-1 as her husband had met with an accident of right tibia fracture and she had taken him to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore for 2nd surgery on 29-09-2022 and she was taking care of her husband in the said hospital. That the non cross examination of PW-I is bonafide and not intentional one. Hence it is just and necessary to reopen the case. Hence, she prays to allow the applications.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed detailed objections and contended

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

that, PW-1 is a senior citizen all along he has come for Bhadravathi the said fact has very much known by the 3rd defendant, only to harass the plaintiff the defendant No.3 has filed application after application. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the applications are not at all come to the aid of the defendant No.3 for cross examination of PW-1 that to the PW-1 has examined very long back. Hence, on all these grounds prays to dismiss the applications.

¶46

The court perused the documents available on record. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and also partition and separate possession, in the year 2011, There after the defendants have filed written statement and issues was framed. As per direction of high Court is a more than 11 years old case. The matter is posted for defendants side evidence on 31-10-2022. On 03-09-2022 the defendant No.2 and 3 have filed the IA under Sec. 151 of CPC and under order 18 R-17 R/W 151 of C.P.C to re-open the case and to recall P.W-1 for were allowed & cross examine PW-1. These applications recalled P.W-1 on 13-09-2022. This court had given the sufficient opportunity to the defendants have failed to cross-examine PW-1. When the case was posted for defendant evidence, at that time defendant No.3 counsel filed applications U/Sec.151 of C.P.C to re-open the case, 18 R- 17 R/W 151 of C.P.C to recall P.W-1 for cross examine PW-1.

¶47

Though the applications filed by the defendant No.3 at a belated stage. That the reasons stated by the defendant No.3 in her sworn affidavits though are not satisfactory. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that, defendants have filed many applications no proper reasons only dragging the present case. Hence, for the upshot reasons and discussions, this Court answers point No.1 in the Negative.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

13. Point No.2 :- For the aforesaid reasons and findings on Point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

I.As. filed by the applicant/defendant No.3 I.A. U/Sec.151 of C.P.C, and IA U/ ० . 18 R-17 R/W Sec.151 of C.P.C are hereby rejected.

¶54

On cost of Rs.500/-. "

¶55

Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if one opportunity is granted, he would complete the cross-examination on the very day that is fixed by the concerned Court. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would put up vehement opposition on the ground that the petitioner has been repeatedly given opportunity and the same is not utilized, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to complete the crossexamination by further cross-examination of PW.1 on the particular day fixed by the Court.

¶56

It is made clear that the concerned Court shall not

¶57

grant even a day's adjournment on whatever score to crossexamine PW.1. Pursuant to the cross-examination, it is open to

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:37684 WP No. 22328 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the concerned Court to regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion.

¶62

Since the suit is of the year 2011, I deem it

¶63

appropriate to infuse finality. The concerned Court shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within three months after the conclusion of the cross-examination of PW.1 as now ordered.

¶64

Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed .

¶65

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶66

CBC

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115

Smt. Bhagya Latha v. Thomas Sathyadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagya Latha v. Thomas Sathyadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mycon Construction Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Shareef @ Mohammed Sharief @ Fahim Haji Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh B R Vs the State of Karnataka

C S Kodandaramaraju Vs Mrs. S Bhagyalaxmi

Sri Narayanappa K Vs Sri Narayanaswamy a

M/S Shrinivas Trading and Transports Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited