G Radha Krishna Nayak v. Sai Gokul Apartments Owners Association

Order XVIII Rule of CPC in O.S.No.25155/2020, whereby the application filed by the defendant, for recalling the evidence of PW-1 for further cross-examination has been rejected.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶3The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.25155/2020 for recovery of money. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Thereafter, the chief-examination of PW-1 was completed.

Though several opportunities were granted, the defendant failed to cross-examine PW-1. Ultimately, the evidence of PW-1 was closed on 21.06.2025. After a lapse of about three months, on 15.09.2025, the defendant filed an application seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated

04.02.2026, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶4It is evident that sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1. Despite the same, the defendant failed to avail those opportunities, resulting in closure of the evidence of PW-1. The application for recall has been filed after lapse of three months. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and to afford a final opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference, subject to appropriate conditions.

¶5Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the C/c IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.25155/2020, is set aside. c) The application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is allowed, subject to condition that petitioner-defendant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on

26.03.2026 before the Trial Court. d) The petitioner-defendant is permitted to cross examine PW-1 on 26.03.2026 without seeking any further adjournment.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

NC:(2026:KHC:17102( WP(No.(7193(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.7193(OF(2026((GM-CPC)( BETWEEN:(( 1., G.,RADHA,KRISHNA,NAYAK, S/O,G.,RAMDAS,NAYAK,, AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS, R/AT,S-9,,SAI,GOKUL,APARTMENTS,, TH TH14 ,MAIN,,4 ,BLOCK,,EAST,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011., …PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,SUKANYA,BALIGA,B.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ( 1., SAI,GOKUL,APARTMENTS,OWNERS,ASSOCIATION, TH14 ,MAIN,ROAD,,4TH,BLOCK,(EAST), JAYANAGAR,BENGALURU,-560011, REP.,BY,ITS,PRESIDENT,SAGAR,D.,CHHEDA., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,K.N.HARISH,BABU,,ADVOCATE), , Digitallytisignedtiby , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227, DHANALAKSHMI OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,ORDER, MURTHY DATED, 04.02.2026, VIDE, ANNEXURE-J, PASSED, BY, THE, CITY, CIVIL, Location:0HIGH AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, MAYOHALL, (CCH, 21), BENGALURU, IN, O.S, COURTOF NO.25155/2020,ON,IA,FILED,UNDER,ORDER,18,RULE,17,R/W,WITH,KARNATAKA SECTION,151,OF,CPC.,AND,TO,ISSUE,DIRECTION,TO,THE,CITY,CIVIL, AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE,MAYOHALL,(CCH-21),BENGALURU,TO,ALLOW, THE,IA,FILED,BY,THE,PETITIONER/,DEFENDANT,UNDER,ORDER,18, RULE,17,READ,WITH,SECTION,151,OF,CPC,IN,O.S.NO.25155/2020, BEING, ANNX-G, FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT, AND, ANNEXURE-G., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has called in question the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the C/c IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Trial Court'), on I.A. filed under