Allowed

Sri Y Padmanabha Rao v. Mr Abdul Rehman

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026WP/27894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 226 quashing an order rejecting applications to recall a witness for further cross-examination in a commercial suit. The High Court directed the Commercial Court to complete cross-examination as scheduled.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I As allowed; cross-examination of PW-1 to be completed on 03.03.2026 or other date to be fixed by the Commercial Court without adjournment.

Sri Y Padmanabha Rao Vs Mr Abdul Rehman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:9780 WP No. 27894 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 27894 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI Y PADMANABHA RAO S/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶10

SMT MEERA P RAO W/O SRI PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

SRI SUBRAMANYA RAO S/O SRI PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE R/O SANGEETHA NILAYA,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, SHANKARAPPA LAYOUT, TIPTUR TOWN, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 201.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR ABDUL REHMAN S/O MR ABDUL BASHEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O MAHANTHAPPA COMPOUND,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9780 WP No. 27894 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

TIPTUR TOWN, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201.

¶22

PRESENTLY AT, ABDUL BASHEER CYCLE SHOP, OPP VANDANA TEXTORIUM, B H ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMKUR DSITRICT 572 201.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. K. LAKSHMIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 31.08.2024 PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO. 10046/2023 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR (SITTING AT TIPTUR) ON IA.NO.6 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC AND I.A.NO.7 FILED U/O XXIII R17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition by the defendants in

¶29

Com.O.S.No.10046/2023 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 whereby the said applications

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9780 WP No. 27894 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

filed by the petitioners-defendants to reopen the case and recall PW-1 for further cross examine was rejected by the trial Court.

¶33

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent-plaintiff against the petitioners -defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.14,42,000/together with interest and other reliefs, the respondent adduced evidence and examined as PW-1 and was partly cross examined by petitioners who thereafter examined himself as DW-1 and matter was posted for further cross examination of DW-1, at which stage, the petitioners filed the instant applications seeking recalling of PW-1 on the ground that certain instructions had been omitted to be given to his counsel for the purpose of effective cross-examination of PW-1 and as such, it was necessary that PW-1 was recalled for further crossexamination. The said applications having been opposed by the respondent, trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting applications on the ground that the affidavit in support of the applications was vague, bald and did not assign any sufficient cause as to why the case ought to be reopened

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9780 WP No. 27894 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

and permission for further cross-examination is to be granted to the petitioners. In this context, the trial Court has clearly adopted a hypo-technical approach without appreciating that it was necessary to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to further cross-examine PW-1, having regard to the issues in controversy and the valuable rights of the parties being involved in the suit. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the applications deserve to be allowed by issuing certain directions.

¶37

In the result, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. Petition is hereby allowed.

¶40

ii. Impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Com.O.S.No.10046/20023 is set aside.

¶41

iii. I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed by the petitioners before the commercial Court are hereby allowed.

¶42

iv. The petitioners are directed to complete the cross-examination of PW-1 on 03.03.2026 (if he is present on that day) or any other date to

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:9780 WP No. 27894 of 2024

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

be fixed by the commercial Court without seeking adjournment under any circumstances

¶47

whatsoever.

¶48

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶49

BVK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6

Sri Y Padmanabha Rao v. Mr Abdul Rehman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y Padmanabha Rao v. Mr Abdul Rehman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tara Bai Vs Sri. Jeevan H H

Sri Tajammul Pasha Vs Smt Shakira Sultana

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., Vs M/S. Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Sri. Michel Raj, Vs Smt. Kantha Chandra

Sri Rudresh Raju G Vs Smt. Yashodamma

Sri R Prakash Vs Sri M Srinivasan