ORDER : (M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.) The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question an order dated 03-04-2025, passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1963 of 2002 rejecting application in I.A.No.XCII filed under Order XVI Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning of witnesses. 2. Heard Sri A.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - On 03-09-1892 one Srinivas Raju Gabriel purchases the suit schedule property. In 1950 it transpires that Srinivas Raju Gabriel and his family permitted the grand father of the petitioner/defendant to reside in the suit schedule property and the petitioner is said to be in possession of the same now. In the year 2002, one Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji files a suit for injunction against the petitioner and for delivery of vacant possession of the property. The suit since then is on. Several proceedings, at intermittent intervals, are instituted by the plaintiff by filing applications one after the other and orders on those being challenged before this Court. The issue now is with regard to an application filed in I.A.No.XCII. Three applications come to be filed by the petitioner in I.A.Nos. XC, XCI and XCII. I.A.Nos. XC and XCI were preferred under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall and reopen of the stage of cross- examination of the respondents. On 14-03-2025 the petitioner files a memo stating that he is not pressing I.A.Nos. XC and XCI, but addresses arguments on I.A.No.XCII filed under Order XVI Rule 1(2) of the CPC seeking summoning of witnesses. This comes to be dismissed; the dismissal of which has led the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that summoning of witnesses, as obtaining in the application, is imperative to decide whether the petitioner was a tenant in the property or he was inducted otherwise. The learned counsel would submit that the dismissal of the application, in a perfunctory way, is contrary to law and if the witnesses summoned, examination can be done and proceedings would get concluded immediately. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the dismissal of the application, in a perfunctory way, is contrary to law and if the witnesses summoned, examination can be done and proceedings would get concluded immediately. 5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the respondents would contend that this very petitioner had filed applications, I.A.No.LVIII and LIX to summon the plaintiff as a witness and to cross-examine him. The said applications come to be allowed by the concerned Court, which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.52330 of 2019. The order comes to be set aside holding that the plaintiff cannot be summoned for deposing as a witness of the defendant. The said order in Writ Petition No.52330 of 2019 has become final. The petitioner again files the same application to summon the plaintiff as his witness. This is only to drag on the proceedings, as the petitioner is squatting over the property for the last 22 years as a tenant without paying a rupee of rent. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The issue in the present lis lies in a narrow compass. The application, I.A.No.XCII filed by the petitioner is necessary to be noticed. The application is as follows: “APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the counsel for the Defendant most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to summon the following witnesses and permit me to examine and cross-examine the following witnesses as their evidence is crucial to adjudicate the present case and the same may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. Witnesses:- 1. H.M.MaharaniKumud Kumari, Aged about 84 years, Huzur Bangla, Gondal, Rajkot – 360 311. 2. H.H. Maharajah Shri Himanshusinji Jyotendrasinhji, Aged about 59 years, Huzur Bangla, Gondal, Rajkot – 360 311. 3. Gaurang Ramniklal Sanghvi, S/o Mr. Ramniklal Sanghvi, Aged about 57 years, R/a Gaurang Apartments, 4 th Floor, 5 Bhaktinagar Society, Rajkot – 360 002.” The contents of the affidavit, insofar as they are germane, are as follows: - “…. …. …. 10. 2. H.H. Maharajah Shri Himanshusinji Jyotendrasinhji, Aged about 59 years, Huzur Bangla, Gondal, Rajkot – 360 311. 3. Gaurang Ramniklal Sanghvi, S/o Mr. Ramniklal Sanghvi, Aged about 57 years, R/a Gaurang Apartments, 4 th Floor, 5 Bhaktinagar Society, Rajkot – 360 002.” The contents of the affidavit, insofar as they are germane, are as follows: - “…. …. …. 10. Furthermore, in view of the order of Hon’ble High court in W.P.No.35358 of 2017 whereby liberty has been granted to me to examine or cross-examine any witness before this Hon’ble Court and for the effective adjudication of the present case, it is germane to verify the veracity of the documents marked as Ex.P38 and P39 by examining and cross-examining the witness No.1 and 2, who claim to be the legal representatives of the plaintiff and the witness No.3 being the SPA holder of the plaintiffs. 11. I state that, in light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is essential that the witnesses No.1 to 3 be summoned before this Hon’ble Court and be subjected to cross-examination to determine the authenticity and the veracity of the documents marked as Ex.P38 and P39, so that I may be given an opportunity to adequately contest my case before this Hon’ble Court.” Objections are filed by the respondents to the application in I.A.No.XCII. The objections read as follows:- “STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO I.A.NO.92 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. The Plaintiff’s hereby state the following: 1. The instant application being I.A.No.92 is not maintainable and is an abuse of the process of Law. The Defendant has devised the instant application as a further means to protract the lis which has already been pending for more than 2 decades. The summoning of the Plaintiffs by a Defendant likely to abuse the process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The Defendant has earlier filed I.A.Nos. 90 and 91 to recall PW-2 for cross-examination and on 14-03-2025 the Defendant withdrew the said applications, having done so the Defendant is indirectly trying to achieve what he could not have achieved through I.A.Nos.90 and 91. The Defendant has earlier filed I.A.Nos. 90 and 91 to recall PW-2 for cross-examination and on 14-03-2025 the Defendant withdrew the said applications, having done so the Defendant is indirectly trying to achieve what he could not have achieved through I.A.Nos.90 and 91. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2570 of 2024 while imposing a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- directed this Hon’ble Court to dispose of the instant suit in 3 months i.e., by 22-05-2025 while also curbing the Defendant from filing frivolous I.As. For all these reasons, the instant application deserves to be rejected. 2. The only reason assigned by the Defendant for summoning the list of witnesses mentioned in the application is to verify the veracity of the documents marked as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. The Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 are certified copies of the title documents that are marked as plaintiff’s evidence pursuant to the order dated 03-07-2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.35358 of 2017. The said documents are exhibited to demonstrate the ownership of the Plaintiff. The suit being one for eviction, the degree of prove to demonstrate ownership is being discharged by the Plaintiffs by furnishing Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. The questioning of title by a tenant in a suit for eviction cannot be gone into as is a title suit and the evidence required would only be insofar as meeting the frivolous defence taken up by the Defendant. In this regard the two exhibits which were tendered originally a decade ago were subjected to scrutiny by the Defendant through elaborate cross-examination on 16-01-2017. Therefore, seeking summoning of witnesses, to verify the veracity of the documents as Ex.P38 and Ex.p39 is impermissible and does not exist. 3. Pursuant to marking of Ex.P38 and Ex.P39, the Defendant had filed I.A.Nos. 90 and 91 seeking to recall the witness to cross-examine on the ground that by virtue of Order dated 03-07-2019 the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.35358 of 2017 has given the Defendant liberty to lead further evidence either by examining/further examining or further cross-examining any witnesses or produce any document as may be required for the due adjudication of the lis. As such by virtue of order dated 21-11-2024 the title deeds/sale deeds of the Plaintiffs are admitted into Evidence and marked as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 hence the Defendant filed I.A.Nos. 90 and 91. As such by virtue of order dated 21-11-2024 the title deeds/sale deeds of the Plaintiffs are admitted into Evidence and marked as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 hence the Defendant filed I.A.Nos. 90 and 91. The purpose for which I.A.Nos.90 and 91 were filed and the purpose for which I.A.No.92 is filed is one and the same, as can be seen in the reasoning of the Affidavit filed in support of the I.A. Nos. 90, 91 and 92. The Defendant has withdrawn the said I.A.Nos.90 and 91 on 14-03-2025. Having given up the right to cross- examine the witness for scrutinizing Ex.P38 and Ex.P39, the Defendant is now trying to re-agitate the same issue yet again. What could not have been done directly is being sought to be done indirectly. For this reason, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. The instant suit is for possession and is already pending for 24 years. The Defendant has been devising ways and means to protracting the instant litigation. Recently on one such frivolous application which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court and challenged by the Defendant before the Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble High Court has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/- while directing a time bound disposal of the suit. Earlier to there have been multiple directions by the Hon’ble High Court which could not be complied due to the cantankerous nature of the Defendant who is abusing the process of law. Even this Hon’ble Court has rejected an application with exemplary cost. This I.A. too deserves to be rejected by imposing exemplary and punitive costs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs pray that the instant application may be rejected with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/- as imposed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2570 of 2024.” As observed hereinabove, the petitioner has been before this Court on umpteen number of times, as present application is I.A.No.XCII. Identical application was preferred in I.A.Nos.LVIII and LIX. The coordinate Bench, in W.P.No.52330 of 2019, allows the petition, set aside the order which granted permission to summon the plaintiff as defendant’s witness. The coordinate Bench while allowing W.P.No.52330 of 2019 holds as follows: “Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.1963/2002 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 15.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K whereby, the learned XXXI Addl. The coordinate Bench while allowing W.P.No.52330 of 2019 holds as follows: “Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.1963/2002 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 15.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K whereby, the learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-14) Bangalore, having favoured respondent’s applications in I.A.Nos.58 & 59 has summoned him to enter the witness box for cross examination by the defendant. 2. After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through his counsel makes submission in justification of the impugned order and opposes the Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court frames the following two questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether a person who has not deposed in examination-in-chief be summoned for cross examination? (ii) Whether is it open to the defendant to summon the plaintiff for deposing as his witness? The answer to these questions has to be in the negative for the reasons stated hereunder: a) admittedly, the petitioner – plaintiff till date has not entered the witness box and deposed by way of examination in chief or by filing the affidavit evidence, in lieu of formal examination in chief; in the absence of examination in chief, a person cannot be straightway subjected to cross examination subject to all just exceptions into which case of the petitioner does not fit; Mr. Rupert Cross , an Oxford Professor of law, in his treatise “EVIDENCE” III Edition, London – BUTTERWORKS, at Page – 212, states as under: “ All witnesses are liable to be cross examined except one who is called by the judge, one who is called for the sole purpose of producing a document and one who is not examined-in-chief because he had been called by mistake. A witness who does not come within these excepted categories is probably liable to be cross-examined, not merely by the opponent of the party calling him, but also by all other parties. A witness who does not come within these excepted categories is probably liable to be cross-examined, not merely by the opponent of the party calling him, but also by all other parties. All parties probably have the right to cross-examine witnesses not called by them, whether or not the witness is himself a party, and whether or not the witness has given evidence against the party seeking to cross-examine him; … b) Sarkar’s “ Law of Evidence ” 18 th Edition, Lexis Nexis at page 138 states as under: “ When Witness may not be Cross- Examined - (1) A witness summoned merely to produce a document (post s.139); (2) a witness sworn by mistake (ante and post s.139); or (3) a witness whose examination has been stopped by the judge before any material question has been put (Creevy v. carr. 7 C & P 64) is not liable to cross examination. (4) A witness giving replies in answer to questions by the court can only be cross examined with leave (s.165 post). (5) A witness who has given no evidence in chief, may not be cross-examined as to credit (Bracegirdle v. Bailey, 1 F & F 536). (6) Under s.138 of the Indian Evidence Act, cross-examination follows chief-examination, but not without chief-examination. It there is no chief-examination, there is no cross- examination. Application for cross-examination of the plaintiff even when the plaintiff has not been examined in chief was rejected as not maintainable”. (6) Under s.138 of the Indian Evidence Act, cross-examination follows chief-examination, but not without chief-examination. It there is no chief-examination, there is no cross- examination. Application for cross-examination of the plaintiff even when the plaintiff has not been examined in chief was rejected as not maintainable”. c) the subject applications have been filed for summoning the petitioner – plaintiff for the purpose of cross examination on the ground that his attorney had deposed from the side of plaintiff and that he is now dead; no provision of Evidence Act, 1872 nor any standard books on Evidence are cited in support of the proposition that where the attorney of a party to the suit having deposed in cross examination is dead, the said party can be straightway subjected to cross-examination by the other party; perhaps, the contention of the petitioner is abhorrent to the very idea of cross-examination; in other words, there cannot be a cross examination of a person because his attorney/agent having been examined in chief is not available for cross-examination because of death, disease or otherwise; d) the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that his subject applications can be construed as the ones for summoning the plaintiff to depose as defendant’s witness is untenable; the Privy Council in MAHUNT SHATRUJAN DAS VS. BEWA SHAM DAS, AIR 1938 PRIVY COUNCIL 59 , observed that the practice of calling the defendant as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is condemnable; no special circumstances are pointed out as to why this judicial opinion emanating from enormous wisdom should not be respected and followed. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order and respondent’s subject applications are dismissed.” The order dated 24-02-2020 has become final. After the said order comes the aforesaid application, again to summon the legal representatives of the plaintiff. It is by now too well settled principle of law that the practice of defendant summoning the plaintiff or the plaintiff summoning the defendant as their witness is deprecated right from the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of MALLANGOWDA v. GAVISIDDANGOWDA reported in 1958 SCC OnLine Kar. 122. 8. As observed hereinabove, the subject application is I.A.No.XCII. The suit is 23 years old. 122. 8. As observed hereinabove, the subject application is I.A.No.XCII. The suit is 23 years old. There is also a direction at the hands of this Court that the suit should be disposed of within three months. The petitioner is trying to protract the proceedings all over again. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court for rejecting the application is as follows: “…. …. …. 14. The defendant filed I.A.No.LVIII and I.A.No.LIX to issue summons to the plaintiff to enter the witness box for cross examination by the defendant. The said applications were allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2019. The plaintiff challenged the said order in W.P.No.52330/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.52330/2019 vide its order dated 24.02.2020 arisen out of the orders of this Court order passed on I.A.No.LVIII and I.A.No.LIX dated 15.10.2019 in this suit, held that a person who has not deposed in examination-in-chief cannot be summoned for cross examination and it is not open to the defendant to summon the plaintiff for deposing as his witness. The said principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said case are applicable to the present application also. For the above reasons, the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the defendant in the case between Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited V/s INEOS Styrolution Ltd., [(2019) SCC OnLine Guj 7040] is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand and the defendant has shown sufficient reasons to summon the witnesses as prayed in the application. 15. It is very pertinent to note that in W.P.No.2570/2024 vide order dated 18.02.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that the defendant has been persistently filing applications one after the other before this Court and has protracted on innocuous suit for possession for more than 23 years. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka issue several directions for early disposal of the suit and unmindful of the consequences, the defendant went about filing applications one after the other that too when the case was listed for final arguments. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka issue several directions for early disposal of the suit and unmindful of the consequences, the defendant went about filing applications one after the other that too when the case was listed for final arguments. With the said observations, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka imposed cost of Rs.5.00 lakhs and directed this Court that it shall not entertain any further applications by the defendant and the plaintiff shall address arguments at this Court shall conclude the proceedings within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On 04.03.2025, this Court received the copy of the said order produced by the plaintiff. In spite of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the defendant continued his habit of filing such applications after applications without allowing the plaintiff to submit the arguments on merits. This conduct of the defendant is highly condemnable and the plaintiff shall pay cost for it. For the above reasons, the other judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the defendant in Bhavesh Nareshchadra Amin’s case is not assist the defendant in the present case on hand. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDERS I.A.No.XCII filed by the defendant under Order XVI Rule 1(2) R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.” I do not find any perversity or error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, as I am in respectful agreement with the order passed by the coordinate Bench quoted supra. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected . Interim order, if any operating, shall stand dissolved. The concerned Court shall conclude the proceedings with an outer limit of 4 weeks from today, if not earlier. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed.