Sri P Gopal Vs Smt C Kamalamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri P Gopal Vs Smt C Kamalamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

That portion of the trial court's order dated 09.04.2026 taking the evidence of DW-2 as nil was set aside; defendant No. 2 was permitted to adduce his evidence on the next date of hearing; liberty was reserved to move the trial court to record the evidence of Jayanna if he recovers before the matter is posted for arguments. The rejection of the Section 151 CPC deferral application was upheld.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner/defendant No. 2's application under Section 151 CPC seeking deferral of recording of evidence until the injured witness Jayanna could be examined. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the doctor did not specify any time frame within which Jayanna would recover and be in a position to depose, the trial court cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for his recovery; the rejection of the request to defer recording of DW-2's evidence was right and involves no error or illegality.

Ratio / Principle

The portion of the trial court's order taking the evidence of DW-2 as nil is set aside, and defendant No. 2 is permitted to adduce his evidence on the next date of hearing.

Key takeaways

If Jayanna recovers before the matter is posted for arguments, the parties are at liberty to move the trial court for recording his evidence, and upon such application the trial court shall permit the same in accordance with law.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Deferral of evidence — Witness incapacitated by accident. Defendant No. 2 in O.S. No. 340/2013 (suit for cancellation of gift deed and permanent injunction) challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 09.04.2026 of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru rejecting his application under Section 151 CPC to defer recording of evidence until DW-3 Jayanna — hospitalised with traumatic brain injury following an accident and certified by the treating doctor as not in a clinical state to give any statement — could depose, in consequence of which DW-2's evidence had been taken as nil. Held: (i) as the doctor specified no time frame for recovery, the trial court could not be expected to wait indefinitely; the rejection of the deferral request involved no error or illegality; (ii) however, the portion of the order taking DW-2's evidence as nil was set aside and defendant No. 2 was permitted to adduce his evidence on the next date of hearing; (iii) if Jayanna recovers before arguments, the parties may move the trial court to record his evidence, which shall be permitted in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of accordingly (single judge, H.T. Narendra Prasad J.).

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20797 WP No. 11996 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11996 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI P GOPAL S/O. LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT SUNKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE-560091.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

SMT C KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE M. LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS R/AT ARALIMARADAPALYA SIRA GATE, TUMKUR-572106.

SMT. K.L NAGALAKSHMI W/O. H.K. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT MAHAMANE COLLEGE LINK ROAD, 3RD BLOCK KUVEMPUNAGARA TUMKUR TOWN.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V VISWANATH SETTY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20797 WP No. 11996 of 2026

HC-KAR

ASIDE THE ORDER OF 3^RD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMKUR DATED 09-04-2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.340/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by defendant No. 2 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”), seeking to defer the matter until the witness is examined.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20797 WP No. 11996 of 2026

HC-KAR

The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed O.S.No. 340/ 2013 for cancellation of the gift deed and permanent injunction. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues.

Respondent No. 2, who is defendant No. 1, furnished a list of witnesses, which is produced as Annexure-G. One Jayanna was to be examined as DW-3. However, in the meantime, he met with an accident. Therefore, the trial Court directed the petitioner/defendant No. 2 to examine his witnesses.

The petitioner/defendant No.2 filed an application seeking to defer the matter until the recording of evidence of Jayanna. The said application was rejected, and the evidence of DW-2 was taken as nil.

Defendant No.1 filed a list of witnesses, one amongst them being Jayanna, is a material witness in the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20797 WP No. 11996 of 2026

HC-KAR

case. Since he met with an accident, the trial court appointed a Court Commissioner to record his evidence. When the Court Commissioner visited the hospital, the doctor issued a letter stating that Jayanna was not in a position to give any statement. The said letter is produced

as Annexure-J. The same is extracted below:

“Mr.Jayanna, 58 years/M, with hospital ID – 701010115 has suffered Traumatic Brain Injury in February 2026 and is currently admitted under department of PMR at Aster CMI Hospital for rehabilitation. He is having tracheotomy and has weakness in all four limbs. He is dependent for all his daily activities.

He is not in a clinical state to talk or give any statement.

This is for your kind information.”

Since the doctor has not specified any time frame

within which Jayanna would recover and be in a position to

depose, the trial Court cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for his recovery. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner/defendant No.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20797 WP No. 11996 of 2026

HC-KAR

2 to defer the recording of evidence of DW-2. There is no

error or illegality in that part of the order passed by the trial court.

However, insofar as taking the evidence of DW-2 as nil is concerned, that portion of the order is set aside, and defendant No. 2 is permitted to adduce his evidence on the next date of hearing.

If Jayanna recovers before the matter is posted for arguments, the parties are at liberty to move the trial court for recording his evidence, and upon such application being made, the trial court shall permit the same in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35