Karnataka High Court
WP/642/2026 of SMT MANJULA Vs SMT NAGARATHNA on 29 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010017052026 NC: 2026:KHC:47107 WP No. 642 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MANJULA D/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI, W/O.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT MANJULA
D/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI,
W/O. GIRISH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2.
SMT. REKHA,
D/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI,
W/O. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3.
SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,\
ALL ARE R/AT. NO. 72, SUNSHINE BAG,
AVENUE ROAD CROSS, KILARI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.N. SATHYA RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT NAGARATHNA
W/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
SMT. NETHRAVATHI,
D/O. LATE. G. SHANKARACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT. NO. 35 AND 36,
10TH CROSS, DODDEGOWDANAPALYA,
UTHARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, THE
PETITIONERS PRAY THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 1183/2023 ON THE
FILE OF XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH. NO. 36) BANGALORE, AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY
THE COURT ON IA., NOS. 7 AND 8, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE
'F', DATED. 12-12-2025 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
PAY THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. Nos.7 and 8 in O.S. No.1183/2023 dated 12.12.2025 on the file of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the applications filed by the defendants seeking to reopen the case of the plaintiff and to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. While dismissing the said application the Trial Court has observed that PW-1 and PW-2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. PW-1 was fully cross-examined by the advocate for the defendants on 17.04.2025 and PW-2 was fully cross- examined on 11.08.2025. For cross-examination of PW-1, the advocate for the defendants took two hearing dates. Firstly, he was partly cross-examined on 24.03.2025 and, lastly, on 17.04.2025, cross-examination of PW-1 was completed. Similarly, cross-examination of PW-2 was completed in a single sitting.
HC-KAR
3. Thereafter, the case was posted for the defendants' evidence, sufficient time was granted, but the evidence of the defendants was not led. Instead of leading the defendants' evidence, the defendants are engaged in filing false and baseless applications. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rejected the same and posted the matter for the defendants' evidence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, if an opportunity is given to the petitioners, they would be able to complete the cross-examination. If the plaintiffs' witnesses are recalled, the petitioners would be able to complete the cross-examination. The Trial Court has failed to consider the request made by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that sufficient opportunity has been given to the defendants and that the witnesses have been cross-examined at length. It is further submitted that the application has now been filed only to protract the proceedings, and that the writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. No doubt, the petitioners have cross-examined the plaintiffs' witnesses on two occasions, and when an application was filed seeking to reopen the case and recall PW-1, the Trial Court has dismissed the applications. However, at the same time, this Court wants to balance the interest of both the parties. Hence, this Court is of the view that if one opportunity is given to the petitioners herein, it would meet the ends of justice.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 12.12.2025 passed in OS No.1183/2023 on the file of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is set aside. Consequently, IA Nos.7 and are allowed. ii. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 24.09.2026, the petitioners shall cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2 on the same day. No further time will be granted.
HC-KAR
iii. If the petitioners fail to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2 on the said day, the Trial Court shall proceed with the matter. It is made clear that the petitioners herein shall cooperate with the Court in the disposal of the matter. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70