KHAJBI vs HASSAINBEE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 202493 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KHAJBI W/O SHAMEEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
2. JEELANI SAB @ JEELANI PASHA
S/O SHAMEEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
3. MAHIBOOB SAB S/O SHAMEEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
4. HUSSAIN PEER S/O SHAMEEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HUSSAINBEE
D/O BASHUSAB MAKANDAR,
W/O MAGADU SAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD.
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
2. SHAFIA BEGUM W/O SATTA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCU: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
3. CHANDAMMA W/O MAHAMMEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCU: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
4. NABEMMA W/O MALAKASAB,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
5. AMIN NAYAK S/O MADARSAB,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
6. KHADAR BASHA S/O MOHAMMAD SAB,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
7. KHAJA WALI S/O MOHAMMAD SAB,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENT NO 1 TO 7 ARE
R/O ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
8. SMT. BADIYAMMA W/O LATE SHEKSHAVALI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD,
9. MOBIN D/O LATE SHEKSHAVALI,
AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS, OCCU: NIL,
10. MUSKAN BEGUM D/O LATE SHEKSHAVALI,
AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS, OCCU: NIL,
RESPONDENT NO 8 TO 10 ARE
R/O NEAR MASJID,
GUNJALLI VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
11. AMIN SAB S/O MOHAMMAD SAB,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R11 ARE SERVED;
R9 & R10 ARE MINORS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
A) A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025,
PASSED IN O.S.NO.230/2014 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SINDHANUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATIONS FILED U/O SECTION 151
OF CPC AND XVIII RULE 17 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY AS
PER ANNEXURE-E AND E1.
B) SUCH FURTHER ORDER OTHER RELIEFS BE
GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS TO
WHICH THE PETITIONERS WOULD BE
FOUND ENTITLED TO ON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 06.08.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.34 and
35 in O.S. No.230 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur (for short, ‘ the Trial
Court ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
3. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.230 of 2014
against the respondents for declaration, injunction,
and recovery of possession in respect of the
agricultural lands. Upon institution of the suit, the
Trial Court ordered for issuance of summons. The
respondents appeared and filed a written statement.
The petitioners and the respondents have lead their
evidence.
4. When the case was posted for respondents’ reply
arguments and at that stage, the petitioners filed
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
applications in I.A. No.34 seeking to set aside the
order dated 13.03.2024 and I.A. No.35 seeking to
recall DW1.
5. In support of the applications, filed an affidavit
stating that the respondents have denied the
relationship of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to his family.
They already cross examined DW1, but, at the time
of cross-examination of DW1, some material
questions were not put to DW1 and the said material
questions are necessary for proving his case. Hence,
prayed to allow the applications.
6. The respondents have orally objected to application
Nos.34 and 35.
7. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, rejected the applications vide order
dated 06.08.2025. Hence, this writ petition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
while cross-examining DW1, some of the material
facts could not be posed to DW1. In order to prove
inter se
the relationship among the parties, it is
necessary to recall DW1. If DW1 is recalled, no
injustice would be caused to the respondents. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
10. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed a suit in the
year 2014 for the relief of declaration and the
petitioners are in the habit of filing applications after
applications. The petitioners have filed an application
in I.A. No.22. The said application was rejected by
the trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2023. The
petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No.201406
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
of 2024. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 29.07.2024 dismissed the writ petition.
12. The matter was posted for arguments of the
respondent’s side i.e., defendants. At that stage, the
petitioners have filed an application to recall DW1 for
further cross-examination.
13. The trial Court placing reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadiraj
Nagappa Varnekar (deceased) through LRs v.
1
Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate , recorded its
finding in paragraph 12 that DW1 was cross-
examined on 25.07.2023, 30.08.2023, 14.02.2024,
13.03.2024 and 06.06.2024. Considering the long
pendency of the case, the trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned order.
14. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the trial Court was justified in rejecting
1
AIR 2009 SC 1604
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11064
WP No. 202493 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030107252025
the application and as such, I decline to interfere
with the impugned order.
15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28
Ct:pk