Dismissed¶49

Sri H G Basavarajappa, v. Sri Ramachandrappa

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025WP/27484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of witness DW.2 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; reopening of case under Section 151 CPC for marking documents already produced; secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; interference with interlocutory orders under Articles 226 and 227; no illegality or perversity; no prejudice to plaintiff; expedition of 2015 suit; Karnataka High Court, GM-CPC; Davangere; IA.Nos.22 and 23 in O.S.No.72/2015; defendant No.7 applications; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.72/2015 as expeditiously as possible. ¶49

Sri H G Basavarajappa, Vs Sri Ramachandrappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.72/2015 as expeditiously as possible.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the common orders dated 30.08.2025 passed on IA.Nos.22 and 23 in O.S.No.72/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere - allowing defendant No.7 to recall DW.2 and to reopen the case for marking documents - suffer from illegality or perversity warranting quashing under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Court's answer

No injustice or hardship would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the applications, which were filed only for marking of documents already on record.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed on IA.Nos.22 and 23 filed by defendant No.7 to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents, in the trial Court allowing the same.

¶46

Key takeaways

The Court found no need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, as no adverse orders were passed against them.obiter¶31
Since the suit of the year 2015 was set down for arguments, the trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings notwithstanding the applications being allowed for marking of documents on behalf of DW.2, and to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common orders dated 30.08.2025 (referred to in the body of the order as dated 19.08.2025) passed on IA.Nos.22 and 23 in O.S.No.72/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere. The applications, filed by defendant No.7 at the fag end of the trial after the defendant's evidence concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, were: IA.No.22 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall DW.2, and IA.No.23 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case for marking documents already produced (documents earlier intended to be led as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but never marked). Held: no illegality or perversity in the impugned order; no injustice or hardship to the plaintiff since the applications were only for marking documents already on record; and no notice to respondents was necessary as no adverse orders were passed against them. Petition dismissed; trial Court directed to expedite and dispose of the 2015 suit, now set down for arguments, as expeditiously as possible.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27484 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI H.G.BASAVARAJAPPA S/O.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ARGICULTRUIST HANUMANHALLI VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANGERE TALUK-577 534

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHARATH B BELAVIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514

¶13

SRI G.M.RANGAPPA S/O.MAHADEVAPPA (DEAD HIS LR DEFENDANT NO.3, WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD)

¶14

SRI NATARAJ, S/O.M.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GANJIGATTE VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI G.C.LOKESHAPPA @ LOKESHWARAPPA S/O.CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514

¶18

SRI G.L.CHANNABASAPPA S/O.G.C.LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514

¶19

SRI G.L.MANJUNATH S/O.G.C.LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTRUSIT GOPANAL VILLAGE MAYAKONDA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514

¶20

SMT.H.M.SAVITRAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HIRETOGALERI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 514

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 30.08.2025 PASSED ON IA.NOS.22 AND 23 IN O.S.NO.72/2015 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶30

This Court does not find any need or necessity to

¶31

issue notice to the respondents as no adverse orders is passed against the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner is none other than the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants.

¶33

Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶34

The plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial Court

¶35

for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. At the fag end of the trial that is when the evidence of the defendant was concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, defendant No.7 has come up with two applications, one in IA.No.22 under Order XVIII Rule 17

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall of DW.2 and another in IA.No.23 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of marking certain documents, which had already been produced before the Court.

¶39

The trial Court, on hearing learned counsels for parties and being satisfied with the reasons assigned therein, has allowed the said applications, which is questioned by the plaintiff in this petition.

¶40

Apparently, it is seen that the defendants have

¶41

produced certain documents before the trial Court to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the said documents are not marked. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, defendant No.7 realised and filed the said applications to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking of those documents, which are already on record. However, no injustice or hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, if

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42720 WP No. 27484 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the said applications are allowed, which are only filed for

¶45

marking of the documents.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed on the applications in IA.Nos.22 and 23 filed by defendant No.7 to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents, by the trial Court in allowing the same. However, since the matter is of the year 2015 and the same is now set-down for arguments, the trial Court shall expedite the proceedings notwithstanding the applications being allowed for marking of the documents on behalf of DW.2.

¶47