- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22220 WP No. 16166 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16166 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI R.NAGARAJU S/O LATE RAMABAYI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS HOUSE NO. 142, BANK COLONY 1ST STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION NACHANAHALLI PALYA, MYSURU – 570 008 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI NARAYANA N., S/O NAGARAJU R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 177/177 BANK COLONY ROAD, 8TH MAIN NACHANAHALLI PALYA, J.P.NAGAR MYSURU – 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GAURAV RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE SRI BHARGAVA D.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI N.SATISH KUMAR S/O B.NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1633 KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 017. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22220 WP No. 16166 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDERS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025 IN O.S. NO. 1229/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU DISMISSING I.A. NO. 18 DATED 12.06.2024 FILED UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. ANNEXURE - A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, by which, an application – I.A.No.18 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to refer the registered sale deed dated 26.06.1985, for an expert opinion, is rejected. 2. The concerned Court has rejected the application and has not entertained the application on the score that there is no doubt that the suit – O.S.No.1229/2017 is one for permanent injunction. Finding no merit to entertain the petition, as the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22220 WP No. 16166 of 2025 order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of it, for this Court to interfere or interdict the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that he be permitted to file a separate suit. If the law permits to the petitioner to file a separate petition, he can do so. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed, without interfering with the impugned order of the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24 CT:SS