JUDGMENT : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This appeal by the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 passed in O.S. NO.660/2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent No.10/plaintiff against the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 and remaining defendant Nos.1 to 9 for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule properties was decreed in favour of 10 th respondent - plaintiff against the appellants and other defendants for partition, declaration and other reliefs. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.10/plaintiff and learned counsel for the remaining parties and perused the materials on record. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.11 —impleading applicant filed an application - I.A.No.3 seeking impleadment on the ground that he has purchased some of the suit schedule properties from the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025. 4. A perusal of the materials on record, it would indicate that respondent No.10/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking declaration, partition and separate possession and other reliefs against appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and other defendants in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the Trial Court framed the following issues. "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 9 are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share in the suit properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated 22.09.2005, 27.11.1998, 11.05.1999 and sale deed executed by defendant No.15 in favour of defendant No.16 dated 10.05.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff's share? 4. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 are absolute owners under the panchayath parikath since 1994? 5. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold the suit property in favour of defendants No.11 to 13? 6. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is not properly valued and Court Fee paid is insufficient? 7. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation? 8. 5. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold the suit property in favour of defendants No.11 to 13? 6. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is not properly valued and Court Fee paid is insufficient? 7. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for? 9. What order or decree?" 5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to P.73 were marked on his behalf. It is a matter of record as can be seen through the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court that the appellants - defendant No.10 to 13 partly cross-examined P.W.1 and after having been discharged on the ground of no further cross-examination, P.W.1 was recalled at the instance of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the matter was posted on 16.09.2023. On that day, since the Trial Court refused to accede to the request of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 for grant of time for further cross examination of P.W.1 and posted the matter for arguments and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the respondent No.10 - plaintiff against the defendants . It is also an undisputed fact that after discharging P.W.1 from further cross-examination, the appellants or other defendants did not adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 submits that the inability and omission on the part of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 to further cross-examine P.W.1 on 16.09.2023 was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and that the further cross-examination of P.W.1 is extremely vital, crucial and necessary for the purpose of examining the defence of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13. It is further submitted that after completing the further cross-examination of P.W.1, the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 intended to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence and an opportunity in this regard has not been provided by the trial Court. It is further submitted that after completing the further cross-examination of P.W.1, the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 intended to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence and an opportunity in this regard has not been provided by the trial Court. It is, therefore, submitted that if the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is set-aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 would complete the further cross examination of P.W.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence and co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of the suit afresh in accordance with law. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent No.10 -plaintiff submits that the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 did not exercise due diligence and continuously procrastinate/protract the proceedings for 11 years and the Trial Court has left with no option but to reject the request for further cross-examination and has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.11/impleaded applicant submits that respondent No.11 having purchased the suit schedule portion of the suit schedule properties prior to the institution of the suit is entitled to be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit and an opportunity is to be provided to the impleading applicant/respondent No.11 to file its written statement and contest the suit on merits and appropriate orders may be passed in the case. 9. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal. 10. The aforesaid stated facts and circumstances clearly indicate that it is an undisputed fact that 10 th respondent - plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and was partially cross-examined by the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the matter was set down for further cross-examination of P.W.1 on 16.09.2023. 10. The aforesaid stated facts and circumstances clearly indicate that it is an undisputed fact that 10 th respondent - plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and was partially cross-examined by the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the matter was set down for further cross-examination of P.W.1 on 16.09.2023. It is a specific assertion of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the request of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 could not further cross-examine P.W.1 on 16.09.2023 and one more opportunity is to be provided to the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 to further cross-examine P.W.1 and the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 would co-operate with the Trial Court in this regard. It is also a matter of record that after closing the further cross -examination of P.W.1 on 16.09.2023, the Trial Court, which ought to have posted the matter for evidence of the defendants, straight away posted the matter for final arguments, which is a patent procedural illegality, which would vitiate the entire proceedings and the impugned judgment and decree. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set-aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by imposing certain terms and conditions upon the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 on the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 to be payable to respondent No.10 - plaintiff on the date of appearance before the trial Court. 11. Insofar as the claim of the Impleading respondent No.11/purchaser is concerned, necessary directions are to be issued to the Trial Court to implead respondent No.11/purchaser as additional defendant No.14 and issue further directions for expeditious disposal of the suit. 12. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 passed in O.S.No.660/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Devanahalli is hereby set-aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.10 - plaintiff before the Trial Court. (iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the Trial Court. (iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the Trial Court. (iv) The Appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 shall pay the aforesaid cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.10 - plaintiff on 08.12.2025. (v) On 08.12.2025, the Trial Court is directed to implead respondent No.11 as additional defendant No.14 and respondent No.10 - plaintiff shall carry out necessary amendment and file amended plaint on that day. (vi) Respondent No.11 - defendant No.14 shall file written statement on 08.12.2025 without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever. (vii) Immediately upon respondent No.11 -defendant No.14 filing the written statement on 08.12.2025, the Trial Court shall frame additional issues and proceed further in the matter and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from 08.12.2025 i.e., on or before 30.06.2026. (viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file appropriate interlocutory applications seeking suitable reliefs, which shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. (ix) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.