Allowed

M S Narayana Reddy v. M Venkataramana Reddy

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/34643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An 80-year-old plaintiff in a money-recovery suit sought recall of PW-1 for further evidence; the trial court rejected the application citing insufficient cause. The High Court set aside the rejection, allowed one more opportunity to complete his evidence, citing the plaintiff's arthritis.

What did the court decide?

Impugned trial court order dated 28.11.2024 set aside; application to recall PW-1 allowed; petitioner to appear before trial court on 10.02.2026 to adduce further evidence.

M S Narayana Reddy Vs M Venkataramana Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.34643/2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶9

M.S. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE SHRI M.S. SONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS NO.4, IST B CROSS, FIEST BLOCK ANANDANAGAR, NEAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE, R T NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560032.

¶10

(BY SRI. R. SHIVACHANDRA NAIK, ADV.,)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

M. VENKATARAMANA REDDY S/O LATE SHRI. MADDANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/OF. ATTAGOLLAHALLI NEAR DIBBURAHALLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. AND ALSO:

¶14

HAVING BUSINESS AT PROPRIETOR OF XEROX SHOP AT OPP. KOLARAMMA TEMPLE FORT, KOLAR-563101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DTD. 28.11.2024 UNDER ANNX-F PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCCH.NO5) ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.4068/2021. ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 4068/2021 & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

(a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dtd. 28.11.2024 under Annx-F passed by the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCCH.No.5) on I.A. Filed under Order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.4068/2021.

¶26

(b) Allow the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.4068/2021 .

¶27

Sri.Shivachandranaik, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

¶29

filed a suit for recovery of money. In the said suit, the defendant entered appearance and contested the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself in-part and 8

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

documents were marked during his evidence. It is submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner were kept in safe custody and for non-securing of those documents from the Registry, further evidence could not be adduced. Hence, time was sought. Thereafter, the plaintiff could not attend the proceedings as he was suffering from severe arthritis and was unable to move from his residence. Hence, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner to recall PW-1 for further evidence. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is provided, the plaintiff would be present before the Trial Court and the Trial Court can regulate its proceedings by providing an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence. It is also submitted that if the opportunity is provided to the plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused to the other side as the proceedings is at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Though served, the respondent remained

¶36

absent.

¶37

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶38

counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶39

The material on record indicates that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.4068/2021 for recovery of money from the defendant with interest. In the said suit, the defendant filed written statement and contested the proceedings. The material on record further indicates that the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. It is to be noticed that the petitioner could not be present before the Court on certain dates for further evidence. The Trial Court posted the matter for cross-examination of PW-1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an application on 22.07.2024 to recall PW-1 to lead further evidence. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that no sufficient cause is

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

made out and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, in his application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC has stated that the petitioner is aged about 80 years and suffering from health related issues, more particularly arthritis. Taking note of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner-plaintiff, I am of the considered view that one opportunity is required to be provided to the petitioner to complete his side of evidence which would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed

¶46

on an application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of

¶47

the CPC in O.S.No.4068/2021 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:3478 W.P. No.34643/2024

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

application filed by the petitioner - PW-1 is allowed.

¶52

(iii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on 10.02.2026. On the said date, the Trial Court shall permit PW-1 to adduce further evidence or any other date as fixed by the Trial Court.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶55

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

M S Narayana Reddy v. M Venkataramana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Narayana Reddy v. M Venkataramana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Indira Vs K Shrinivas Rao

Mr Sreejith Purushothaman Vs Sri B L Kodanda Ramaiah

Beerappa Vs Jagadhish

Ramesh G Sheit Vs K.S. Manjunatha

Sri.Mahalingappa Vs Sri.Venkatappa

Shri M K Sumanth Urs Vs Shri Lokesh