MUDUKAPPA AND ANR vs BEERAPPA AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 200006 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUDUKAPPA S/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI ERAPA S/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O HOSAHALI (EJ) VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI BEERAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SINDHANOOR TOWN,
TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
2. SRI SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O MUDUKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SRI NAGAPPA S/O SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
4. SRI PARWATHAMMA W/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE
R/O HOSAHALLI (EJ) VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
5. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O RAJAPPA DRIVER,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI., AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O JANTHAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. BHEEMAMMA D/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SMT. AMBAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O JAWALAGERA VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
9. SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O PAMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOSAHALLI (EJ) VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
10. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA BUPURI,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI., AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MASTHAN CAMP, T
Q. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
11. SRI BASSAPPA S/O LINGAPPA KOTNEKAL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O K. HANCHINAL VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
V/O DTD. 07.01.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS
DISPENSED WITH PRESENT )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
A) A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED
29-11-2024, PASSED IN OS
NO.195/2014, BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE APPLICATION IN I.A Nos.19 AND 20
FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND U/O 18
RULE 17 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY AS PER
ANNEXURE-D AND D-1.
B) SUCH FURTHER ORDER OTHER RELIEFS
BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO
WHICH THE PETITIONER WOULD BE
FOUND ENTITLED TO ON THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed this writ petition
challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 passed on
I.A. Nos.19 and 20 in O.S. No.195 of 2014 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur (for
the Trial Court’
short, ‘ ).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are
as follows:
3. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.195 of 2014 for
partition, separate possession and declaration to
declare that the sale deed executed by defendant
Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.11, and the
judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.22/1985 are
ineffective and not binding on the petitioners. The
respondents filed a written statement. The Trial
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
Court based the rival pleading of the parties framed
the relevant issues. Thereafter, the parties have
lead evidence and matter was posted for final
arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.
No.19 to reopen the case and I.A. No.20 to recall the
order by permitted them to further cross-examine
DW1.
4. The said applications were opposed by the
respondents filing objections.
5. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, rejected the applications vide order
dated 29.11.2024. Hence, this writ petition.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the
applications. He submits that the application under
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) can be filed at any stage
of the suit, and it should not be filed to fill up the
lacuna in the evidence. However, the said aspect
was not properly considered by the Court below and
committed an error in passing the impugned order.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents supports the impugned order and prays
to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners filed a
suit for partition, separate possession and
declaration. The respondents filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint.
The Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleadings of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
the parties framed the relevant issues. Both parties
have lead evidence and the case was posted for final
arguments.
11. At that stage, the petitioners filed the instant
applications in I.A. Nos.19 and 20 to reopen the case
and to permit the petitioners to recall DW1 and to
cross-examine DW1.
12. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2014. The
examination-in-chief of DW1 was recorded on
06.12.2023 and the case was posted for cross-
examination on 14.12.2023, 21.12.2023 and
08.01.2024, and DW1 was continuously present on
every dates of hearing. At the request of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the case was adjourned
from time to time. On 22.07.2024, the Trial Court
has taken the cross-examination of DW1 as nil and
posted for final arguments.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
13. The petitioners filed an application on 20.02.2024 to
recall DW1. Again, the case was posted for cross-
examination of DW1 on 28.02.2024, 12.03.2024,
26.03.2024, 08.04.2024 and adjourned the matter
on payment of cost of Rs.300/-. Again on 27.05.2024
and 06.06.2024, the Trial Court has granted
sufficient time to cross-examine DW1.
14. Despite granting sufficient time, the petitioners have
not availed the opportunity and did not cross-
examine DW1. The Trial Court finally posted the
matter for final arguments. The Trial Court has
observed that the petitioners are not co-operating to
advance the arguments and there is a total non-co-
operation on the part of the petitioners to dispose of
the suit, which is an older suit of the year 2014.
15. Hence, in this view of the matter, I do not find any
error in the impugned order.
16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11467
WP No. 200006 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030000272025
ORDER
dismissed
(i) The writ petition is .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
Ct:pk