The court emphasized that recalling witnesses must be supported by valid reasons, especially after lengthy delays, adhering to the principle of judicial expediency.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendants 1(b) and 1(c) in O.S.No.6014/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the I Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC to recall PW-1 – Smt.Jayalakshmamma for further cross examination by the petitioners was rejected by the trial court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners – defendants, in the first instance, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 dismissing suit field by the plaintiffs, aggrieved by which, the 1^st respondent – plaintiff No.1 approached this Court in R.F.A.No.2523/2007, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff and also directing conducting of DNA test in accordance with law. The operative portion of the judgment passed in RFA No.2523/2007 is as under:-

“ 75. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6014/1997 is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court.

(iv) The application filed by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed and the appellant is permitted to amend the plaint.

(v) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional statement in view of the allowing of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

(vi) The application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed.

(vii) In view of the allowing of the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Trial Court is directed to secure plaintiff 85 Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling.

(viii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the material on record and allow the plaintiffs and the defendant to adduce their further evidence in view of the observations made by this Court and also consider the DNA report as well as the material on record in toto and dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a period of one year, since the suit is of the year 1997.

(ix) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.07.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court and the respective parties and counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the time bound period. No further time will be extended in future, since one year is given.

(x) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 05.07.2025 and time for disposal starts from 05.07.2025.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, the plaintiffs led further evidence by way of evidence of PW- 6 who was cross-examined by the petitioners-defendants. Thereafter, when the trial court wanted to take necessary steps to conduct DNA test as directed by this Court, the petitioners moved the instant application I.A.No.17 to recall PW-1 – Smt.Jayalakshmamma for further cross-examination. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who interalia contended th