VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Karnataka High Court 2026 › High Court of Karnataka

Sri Usman Khan v. Smt. Sumithra

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Karnataka
Decided
18 August 2026
Bench
Vijaykumar A. Patilauthor
Case no.
WP 4848/2021

Follow Karnataka High CourtFollow Vijaykumar A. Patil

Judgment

ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.5643/2014 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. c) Consequently, I.A.No.9 filed by the defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 read by Section 151 of the CPC is allowed. d) The defendant shall cross-examine PW-1 on the date fixed by the trial Court, and no further adjournment shall be granted, subject to the petitioner paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to the PW1. e) Petitioner No.1(b) is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before this Court to enable him to pay the costs as ordered.

f) PW-1 shall present before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing or the date fixed by the Trial Court.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Case details

Parties and counsel

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:44215 WP(No.(4848(of(2021 CNR:(KAHC010103122021 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(18 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(4848(OF(2021((GM-CPC) BETWEEN:( SRI,USMAN,KHAN,, SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRS., MRS.,S.,NOORUNNISE,,1(A) W/O.,LATE,K.OOSMAN,KHAN,@,USMAN,KHAN,, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS., 1(B) MR.,MOHAMMED,KHAN,, S/O.,LATE,K.OOSMAN,KHAN,@,USMAN,KHAN,, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS., 1(C) MR.,MOHAMMED,IDRIS,KHAN,, S/O.,LATE,K.OOSMAN,KHAN,@,USMAN,KHAN,,, Digitallytisigned by AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS., ANNAPURNA0G Location:0High Courttiof Karnataka PETITIONER,NOS.1(A),TO,1(C),ARE, R/AT,NO.,U-57,,8TH,MAIN,ROAD,, PADARAYANAPURA,, BANGLAORE,-,560,026., MRS.,SHEEBA,SHEERIN,KHANUM,,1(D) D/O.,LATE,K.OOSMAN,KHAN,@,USMAN,KHAN,, AGED,ABOUT,30,YEARS,, R/AT,NO.22,,, 8TH,MAIN,ROAD,, e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:44215 WP(No.(4848(of(2021 CNR:(KAHC010103122021 PADARAYANAPURA,, BENGALURU,-,560,026., …PETITIONER, (BY, SRI., RAMESHCHANDRA,, ADVOCATE, FOR, LR'S, OF, DECEASED,PETITIONER), AND: SMT.,SUMITHRA,, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS,, W/O,SRI,RAMAPPA,, R/AT,NO.89,, PANTHARAPALYA,,MYOSRE,ROAD,, BANGLAORE,-,560,039., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,RAJASHEKHARA,SEERI,,ADVOCATE), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO-QUASH,THE,COSTS, IMPOSED,IN,ANNEXURE-A,ORDER,DATED,15.02.2021,PASSED, BY, THE, HONBLE, XIV, ADDITIONAL, CITY, CIVIL, JUDGE,, AT, BENGALURU,(CCH-28),IN,O.S.NO.5643,OF,2014,AND,PERMIT, THE,PETITIONER,TO,CROSS,EXAMINE,THE,PW1,FURTHER,,BY, ALLOWING,THE,IA,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.5643/2014 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short). 2. Heard Sri Rameshchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rajashekhara Seeri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.5643/2014 seeking the relief of specific performance of the Agreement of Exchange of Property dated 19.05.2014. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement. The parties adduced their evidence. After conclusion of the trial, the matter was posted for arguments. 4. At that stage, the defendant filed I.A.No.9 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking to reopen the stage, recall PW-1 and sought permission for further cross-examination. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application and the grounds in the writ petition indicates that the defendant has stated that some of the important questions were missed out during the cross-examination of PW-1. 5. Taking note of the said aspect, I am of the view that one more opportunity needs to be provided to the defendant. This Court, vide order dated 09.03.2021, issued emergent notice to the respondent, stayed the proceedings in the suit and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is stated that the said amount has been deposited. 6. Taking note of the same, I proceed to pass the following:

Source: High Court of Karnataka, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.