Disposed¶35

Smt. Revathi M S v. Sri B N Raghavendra

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026WP/26207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), S.R. Krishna Kumar J., 20-02-2026, WP No. 26207 of 2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227; recall of PW-2 for further cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in S.C.No.161/2021; trial Court's rejection order dated 19.07.2025 set aside on joint submission; application allowed subject to petitioner securing PW-2, else impugned order stands confirmed; suit to be disposed of preferably within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; impugned order dated 19.07.2025 in S.C.No.161/2021 set aside; application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to further cross-examine PW-2 allowed, subject to the petitioner securing PW-2's presence (failing which the impugned order stands confirmed); trial Court directed to dispose of the suit preferably within six months.

Smt. Revathi M S Vs Sri B N Raghavendra — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.07.2025 in S.C.No.161/2021 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-2 for further cross-examination is liable to be set aside.

¶25

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances and the joint submission made by the parties, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing certain directions.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 in S.C.No.161/2021 on the file of the XX Additional Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶35

Key takeaways

The application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to further cross-examine PW-2 is allowed, subject to the condition that it shall be the sole responsibility/duty of the petitioner to secure the presence of PW-2 for further cross-examination.ratio¶36
If the petitioner is not in a position to secure PW-2 for further cross-examination for any reason whatsoever, the impugned order shall stand confirmed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in S.C.No.161/2021 challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 of the XX Additional Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru, rejecting her application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-2 for further cross-examination. On the joint submission of counsel for the petitioner and respondents that, if the impugned order were set aside, the petitioner would secure PW-2 and complete the cross-examination on a date fixed by the trial Court without seeking adjournment, the High Court disposed of the petition: the impugned order was set aside; the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed subject to the condition that securing PW-2's presence would be the sole responsibility of the petitioner; it was clarified that failure to secure PW-2 would result in the impugned order standing confirmed; and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit preferably within six months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10926 WP No. 26207 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26207 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. REVATHI M S D/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, NO.74, 2^ND A CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGARA, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI B N RAGHAVENDRA S/O B N NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶13

SMT LAVANYA LATHA B N D/O B N NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.38/2, 1^ST MAIN, MOUNT JOY EXTENSION, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 019.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 19.07.2025 PASSED IN SC NO. 161/2021 ON THE APPLICATION FOR RE OPEN OF THE CASE AND FOR RE CALL THE FURTHER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:10926 WP No. 26207 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CROSS OF PW 2 BY LEARNED XX ADDL JUDGE AND ACJM VIDE ANNX-F.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition by the defendant in S.C.No.161/2021 is directed against the impugned order, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-2 for further cross-examination was rejected by the trial Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that if the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 in S.C.No.161/2021 is set aside, the petitioner shall secure PW-2 and complete the cross-examination on a date to be fixed by the trial Court, without seeking any adjournment.

¶28

The aforesaid submission is placed on record.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10926 WP No. 26207 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶32

case and joint submission made by parties, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

¶35

ii) The impugned order dated in 19.07.2025 in S.C.No.161/2021 on the file of XX Additional Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶36

iii) The application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, filed by the petitioner to further cross examine PW-2 is allowed subject to the condition that it shall be the sole responsibility/duty of the petitioner to secure the presence of PW-2 for further cross examination.

¶37

iv) It is made clear that in the event petitioner is not in a position to secure PW-2 for further cross examination for any reason whatsoever, the impugned order shall stand confirmed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:10926 WP No. 26207 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

v) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶43

MDS

¶44

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 76

Smt. Revathi M S v. Sri B N Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Revathi M S v. Sri B N Raghavendra

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

Smt. Venkata Shiva Asha Akula Vs Sri Indar Kumar

Sri. Ravikumar Vs Sri. Arasegowda

Sri. M.C. Balaram Vs Sri. S. Ananda

M/S Kassturi Enterprises Vs Tumkur Merchants Credit

Sri v Prathap Reddy Vs Sri Papanna

M/S Aishwarya Homes Vs Sri Thimmegowda