The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18/11/2015 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Yalburga, whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed an application filed by the respondent under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Smt. Laxmavva, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the suit she had claimed that she has a right over 1/3rd share in the suit property, as property belongs to a joint Hindu Family. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, one Channappa was the owner of the suit property. He had three children namely, Venkareddy, plaintiff-Laxmavva and Timmappa respondent No.2 before this Court. She further claims that respondent Nos.3 and 4, Smt. Sumitravva and Smt. Shoba, were the legal representatives of her brother Venkareddy, who has expired. In the plaint, she further claims that the plaintiff and defendants constituted a Hindu Joint Family. Since the suit properties are ancestral properties, since there was difference of opinion between the parties, when the plaintiff demanded her share and the defendants refused to partition the property, she has no option, but to file the civil suit.

3. The defendants filed their written statements; they specifically denied the fact that the plaintiff-Laxmavva was the daughter of Channappa. They further claimed that they did not constitute a joint Hindu family along with the plaintiff. According to them Channappa had died on 13/9/1988. Therefore, Timmappa the son of Channappa, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 as the legal heirs of Venkareddy, have succeeded to the property. They further claim that after Channappa died there was rift between the Channappa’s wife, and their two sons. Therefore, a partition had taken place on 24/7/2000.

4. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. Subsequently, she filed an application, namely IA No. 16 under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC on 21/2/2015. She furnished a list of witnesses with the said application; she wanted to examine three persons witnesses. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court. However, out of three witnesses only one witness namely, Hanumanthareddy, filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. He was subsequently examined as PW-2.

5. After examination of PW-2, the plaintiff again filed another interlocutory application, namely IA No.7 under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC on 5/6/2015. She again furnished the list of witnesses. She wanted to examine one more witness. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 14/7/2015. This witness, as P.W.3, produced an affidavit dated 5/6/2015, by way of examination-in-chief. However, when this witness was subjected to the cross-examination, he did not support the case of the plaintiff.

6. After the examination of PW-3, the plaintiff again submitted an application, namely IA No. 8 under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC on 16/10/2015. According to this application, the plaintiff still wanted to examine two more witnesses. The said application, although objected to by the petitioner, was allowed by the order dated 18/11/2015.

7. Consequently, one of the witnesses namely, Pakkappa was also examined as PW-4. He has filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit dated 15/7/2015. Hence, this petition before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the plaintiff had thrice filed applications under Order 16 rule 1 CPC and thrice the applications were allowed. She was permitted to examine different witnesses repeatedly. But, this process has to end. Secondly, while allowing the application IA No.7 and IA No.8 and while examining the witnesses, interestingly their affidavits always pre-date the order by which they were permitted to be examined as witnesses. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff is suspect. Lastly, the plaintiff is taking the Court out of a ride by examining different witnesses at different times. That she is taking the Court out for a ride is apparent from the