Parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their cases fully, with prior court orders being considered to prevent arbitrary rejection of procedural applications.

ORDER:

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.48 and 49 in O.S.No.26/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud.

2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioners and other defendants for partition, declaration and other consequential benefits.

3.1. After the evidence was concluded in the suit proceedings, the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 have filed an applications in I.A.Nos.46 to 49 seeking to recall DW.3 for the purpose to let in further chief examination, to reopen the case to facilitate them cross examination of DW.2, to produce the documents annexed in the list and to mark the same as exhibits and to recall DW.2 for the purpose of cross examination respectively. However, I.A.Nos.46 and 47 came to be allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 10.09.2024 and I.A.Nos.48 and 49 are not considered by the trial Court.

3.2 The petitioners-Defendant Nos.4 and 5 after the applications in IA.Nos.46 and 47 came to be allowed, the case was reopened to facilitate the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 to produce additional evidence to produce judgment and decree in R.A.No.147/2022 dated 30.01.2024, which was subsequent to examination of DW.3 and DW.2 was cross-examined and the applications in IA.Nos.48 and 49 that has to be considered was to recall DW.2 whereas recalled DW3 for further examination in chief in order to produce the judgment and decree in RA No. 147/2022.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials on record including the earlier order passed by the trial Court on 10.09.2024. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 that the trial Court has rejected I.A.Nos.46 to 49 without noticing the fact that I.A.Nos.46 and 47 came to be allowed on 10.09.2024 itself and pursuant thereto, DW.2 was fully cross-examined by the petitioners i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, what remains for consideration before the trial Court is to consider I.A.Nos. 48 and 49.

4.1. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 that the plaintiffs never requested for filing objections. The only one person, i.e., defendant No.6 prays time to file objections to I.A.Nos.48 and 49 but strangely has not filed objections. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed objections to all the four applications i.e., I.A.Nos.46 to 49 without noticing the fact that I.A.Nos.46 and 47 were allowed vide order dated 10.09.2024.

4.2. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court would not have rejected I.A.Nos.48 and 49 filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 to lead further evidence on their behalf as DW.3 and to produce the subsequent order in R.A.No.147 of 2022 dated 30.01.2024. The said applications i.e., I.A.Nos.48 and 49 were sought to be allowed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.5 and 6 before the trial Court.

4.3. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 that the trial Court has totally lost sight of its earlier order, wherein it had allowed I.A.Nos.46 and 47. Therefore, what was required to be considered was only I.A.Nos.48 and 49, which were sought by the petitioners-defendant Nos.4 and 5 to lead further evidence on their behalf as DW.3 until they produce subsequent order in support of