Disposed¶59

Mohan K Reddy v. Sri B N Govinda Reddy

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WP/5641/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, single judge (K. V. Aravind J.), writ petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 against dismissal of applications to reopen matter and recall further cross-examination of RW.1 in Misc.No.25149/2012 (XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru); office objection overruled on separate court fees; petition disposed of with liberty to seek fresh opportunity to cross-examine RW.1.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court explaining the reasons for not cross-examining RW.1 on the earlier dates of hearing. ¶59

Mohan K Reddy Vs Sri B N Govinda Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.2/2025 and I.A. No.3/2025 (seeking to reopen the matter and recall the stage of further cross-examination of RW.1) calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Court's answer

The affidavit in support of I.A. No.2 merely alleged interference by the learned counsel for the respondents, and the manner in which reasons were assigned therein for reopening the stage of cross-examination of RW.1 was not satisfactory; the trial Court rightly rejected the applications and this Court finds justification in the impugned order.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

On the petitioner's submission that separate court fees had been paid in respect of each of the two interlocutory applications under challenge, the office objection is overruled.

¶40

Key takeaways

Though not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court explaining the reasons for not cross-examining RW.1 on the earlier dates of hearing; if filed, the trial Court shall consider it on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made in this order.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner in Misc.No.25149/2012 challenging the common order dated 14.01.2026 of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-29), dismissing I.A. No.2/2025 and I.A. No.3/2025 which sought to reopen the matter and recall the stage of further cross-examination of RW.1. Held: the affidavit in support of I.A. No.2 merely alleged interference by the respondents' counsel and the reasons assigned for reopening the cross-examination were not satisfactory; the trial Court rightly rejected the applications and the High Court found justification in the impugned order. However, in the interest of complete and comprehensive adjudication, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court explaining why RW.1 was not cross-examined on the earlier dates, such application to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations in the present order. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 5641 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MOHAN K. REDDY, S/O LATE B.N.KAMALANABHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O No.176, KAMMANAHALLI, GANDHI STREET, BANGALORE-560084.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI B. N. GOVINDA REDDY, S/O LATE DODDA NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O BABSAHEB PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶16

NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶17

SMT. MEENA N. REDDY, W/O LATE G.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. PRAVEEN S/O LATE G.NARAYANA REDDY,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶23

SMT. SWATHI D/O LATE G.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT No.908, 2^ND MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, OPP.NEW PALLOT, CHURCH, BANGALORE - 560 033.

¶25

ANANDA REDDY, S/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶26

LALLESH REDDY, S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶27

RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE R/O BABSAHEB PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶28

SMT.AMBUJAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O REDDY COMPLEX, NEHRU ROAD, SUBHAIAHNA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 033

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 PASSED ON IA No. 2/2025 AND IA No.3/2025 IN MISC No.25149/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-29) MAYO HALL (ANNEXURE-A).

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard Sri M.S. Varadarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.5.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has passed a common order on two interlocutory applications, both of which are under challenge in the present petition, and that separate court fees have been paid in respect of each application.

¶40

Accepting the aforesaid submission, the office objection is overruled.

¶41

The petitioner in Misc.No.25149/2012 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.01.2026 passed on I.A. No.2/2025 and I.A. No.3/2025.

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

4.1 The aforesaid applications were filed seeking to reopen the matter and recall the stage of further cross-examination of RW.1. It was contended that the cross-examination could not be completed on account of interruptions by the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court, having rejected the said contention, proceeded to dismiss the applications.

¶45

Sri M.S. Varadarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner was unavailable, the petitioner was constrained to prosecute the matter as a party-in-person. In that process, proper reasons were not set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking recall.

¶46

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one final opportunity may be granted to cross-examine RW.1, in the interest of a comprehensive and effective adjudication of the matter.

¶47

Sri R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator/respondent No.5, submits that more than ten opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

examine RW.1; however, the petitioner failed to avail the same. It is contended that grant of any further opportunity would amount to harassment of RW.1.

¶51

6.1 It is further submitted that the matter is presently posted for final arguments, and any interference by this Court at this stage would only result in protracting the proceedings.

¶52

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the applications filed along with the supporting affidavits. The affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2 merely alleges interference by the learned counsel for the respondents. The manner in which reasons are assigned therein for reopening the stage of cross-examination of RW.1 is not satisfactory. The trial Court, upon considering the reasons stated in the affidavits, has rightly rejected the applications.

¶53

This Court finds justification in the order passed by the trial Court, having regard to the reasons assigned in the affidavits filed in support of the applications. However, in the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:10953 WP No. 5641 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

interest of a complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, full cross-examination of RW.1 would be necessary.

¶58

Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, explaining the reasons for not cross-examining RW.1 on the earlier dates of hearing. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶59

With the above observations and liberty reserved as aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶60

SD/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mohan K Reddy v. Sri B N Govinda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan K Reddy v. Sri B N Govinda Reddy

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

Hanumanthappa Vs K S Govinda Raju

Sri Lakshmilingappa Vs Smt Sharadamma

Hemalatha H R Vs Sri Mahesh

Sri. Chikkakempaiah Vs Sri. Gurulingaiah

Sri.N.L.Mukundegowda Vs Sri.K.L.Nagendra

Smt Kanakamma Vs Smt Vishalakshmi @ Divya Shalini