Dismissed¶40

Sri G Raju v. Sri B Rajanna

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WP/8218/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; writ petition GM-CPC; recall and reopening of evidence; cross-examination of PW1 recorded nil; last/final opportunity conditioned on payment of Rs.25,000/-; specific performance of contract; O.S. No.1855/2015; III Additional Senior Civil Judge Bangalore Rural District; six-month deadline to dispose of suit; Karnataka High Court 2026; H.T. Narendra Prasad.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, but defendant No.5 given one final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 on 12.03.2026 (another date may be fixed if needed), subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs on that day; on failure to pay, the trial Court's order closing the evidence holds good. Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within six months. ¶40

Sri G Raju Vs Sri B Rajanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.02.2026 of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, rejecting I.A. Nos.6 and 7 (applications of defendant No.5 for recalling and reopening the evidence of PW1 in O.S. No.1855/2015) should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

However, in the interest of justice, defendant No.5 is given one more opportunity and is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on 12.03.2026, with the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 assuring PW-1's presence; if there is difficulty on that day, the trial Court may fix another date.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Despite sufficient opportunities, defendant No.5 has not cross-examined PW-1.

¶39

Key takeaways

The writ petition challenging the trial Court's rejection of I.A. Nos.6 and 7 is dismissed.ratio¶40
The last-chance permission is conditional: defendant No.5 must pay Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs on the day fixed for cross-examination; if he fails to pay, the trial Court's order closing the evidence shall hold good.ratio¶47
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and in any event not later than six months from the date of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.) — Writ Petition No. 8218 of 2026 (GM-CPC), decided 11.03.2026 — Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Recall and reopening of evidence — Cross-examination of PW1. Petitioner (defendant No.5, a purchaser in a suit for specific performance, O.S. No.1855/2015) failed to cross-examine PW1 when his evidence closed on 23.01.2025; his application of 18.06.2025 for recall and reopening led to PW1 being recalled on 25.09.2025, but defendant No.5 was absent and the cross-examination was recorded as 'nil'; the application was finally rejected on 01.12.2025. Challenging the rejection order dated 24.02.2026 (I.A. Nos.6 and 7) of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the High Court DISMISSED the writ petition, holding that sufficient opportunities had been given. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity was granted to cross-examine PW-1 on 12.03.2026, CONDITIONAL on payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs on that date, failing which the trial Court's order closing the evidence holds good. Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:14950 WP No. 8218 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8218 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. RAJU S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 228 KADUGODI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK -560 067.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DASTAGIR J A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. B. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. LATE BANDAPPA R/O. CHIKKABANAHALLI VILLAGE KANNADMANGALA POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK -560 067.

¶14

SRI. DEVENDRAPPA B. M S/O. H. B. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT C/O. SRI. ANJENAPPA OPP. MUNISHAWARI LAYOUT KADDUGODI, BENGLAURU-560 067.

¶15

SRI. V. SRINIVASACHAR S/O. LATE VENAKTARAMANACHAR SINCE DIED BY LR’S

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14950 WP No. 8218 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O. LATE SRINIVACHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶19

SRI. C. S. MURALIDHARA S/O. V. SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶20

SRI. C. S. KESHAVA MURTHY S/O. V. SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶21

THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.20, MANASA NILAYA CHIKKABANAHALLI VILLAGE KADUGODI POST, BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK.-560 067.

¶22

SRI. G. SRINIVASA S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.228, YELLAREDDY CIRCLE KADUGODI, BENGALURU -560 067.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. S AISHWARYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA K V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24-02-2026 PASSED ON I.A NO.6 AND 7 IN O.S.NO.1855/2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.6 AND 7 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:14950 WP No. 8218 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24.02.2026 passed on I.A. Nos.6 and 7 in O.S. No.1855/2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the applications filed by defendant No.5 for recalling and reopening the evidence of PW1 were rejected.

¶33

The plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No.1855/2015 for specific performance of contract. Defendant No.5 is a purchaser. On service of summons, he appeared and filed his written statement. On 23.01.2025, when the evidence of PW1 was completed, defendant No.5 did not cross-examine PW1. Hence, the evidence of PW1 was closed.

¶34

Thereafter, after about six months, an application was filed on 18.06.2025 seeking recall and reopening of the evidence of PW1. On 25.09.2025, PW1 was present

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14950 WP No. 8218 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

along with counsel and the trial Court recalled PW1. On that day, defendant No.5 was absent. Hence, the crossexamination of PW1 was taken as ‘nil’. Again, on 01.12.2025, the application was rejected and the fifth defendant’s evidence was taken as nil. Now, the matter is posted for arguments.

¶38

In spite of giving sufficient opportunities,

¶39

defendant No.5 has not cross-examined PW-1.

¶40

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

However, in the interest of justice, in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.5, he is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on 12.03.2026. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 has assured that PW-1 will be present before the trial Court on 12.03.2026. Defendant No.5 is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on the said date. If there is any difficulty on that day, the trial Court may fix another date.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:14950 WP No. 8218 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

On that day, without fail, defendant No.5 shall crossexamine PW-1.

¶46

The same is subject to the condition that defendant No.5 shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs on the day fixed for cross-examination. If he fails

¶47

to pay Rs.25,000/-, the order passed by the trial Court closing the evidence shall hold good.

¶48

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and in any event not later than six months from today.

¶49

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Sri G Raju v. Sri B Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Raju v. Sri B Rajanna

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

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs Sri. B. Jagadeeswara Babu

Smt Kempa Rangamma Vs Smt Laxmamma

Smt.Krishnaveni Vs Sri.Madhu N

Sri. Avinash R Vs Smt. Jayamma

B Latha Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Sri M Z Fazlulla Khan Vs Sri T K T G Srinivasan