- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7411 WP No. 13738 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13738 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VASUDEVA MADHYASTHA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S SMT RATHNA VASUDEVA W/O LATE C VASUDEVA MADHYASTHA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. SRI UDAYA C MADYASTH S/O LATE C VASUDEVA MADYASTHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SMT UMA CHITHRAPADI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE VASUDEV MADHYASTHA ALL ARE R/AT NO 57, 2ND MAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE,V V PURAM BENGALURU SOUTH, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE C K RAMACHANDRA PRESENTLY AGED 78 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7411 WP No. 13738 of 2023 2. SRI SATHYANARAYANA MADHYASTHA S/O LATE C K RAMACHANDRA PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT AMBALKERI ROAD NEAR VIVEKA JUNIOR COLLEGE HANDATTU, KOTA 576118. 3. SMT KAMALA KALKUR D/O LATE C KRISHNA MADHYASTHA @ C KRISHNAPPA PRESENTLY AGED 80 YEARS R/AT SHIVADATTA NEAR NEHRU HIGH SCHOOL ALEVOOR VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT 574118. 4. SMT K KALAVATHI D/O LATE C KRISHNA MADHYASTHA @ C KRISHNAPPA PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT DURGA KRUPA KRISHNA THEATRE ROAD DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-H ORDER DATED: 12/06/2023, PASSED ON I.A.NO. 5 FILED IN O.S.NO. 10225/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-61) AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7411 WP No. 13738 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-defendant challenging the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the LX City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.5 filed by plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S.No.10225/2015, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said application. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. After service of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. The matter was posted for evidence of the parties. Thereafter, the defendant has filed I.A.No.5 under XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking for a direction to the plaintiff No.3 to produce the original sale deed dated 30.07.1973. The Trial Court, by impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7411 WP No. 13738 of 2023 order has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 4. In the cross examination of DW-1, there was a suggestion put to DW-1 that Ex.D-4, receipt, is a created document. For that purpose, the defendant has filed the I.A.No.5 seeking for a direction to the plaintiff No.3 to produce the original sale deed dated 30.07.1973, which is in the custody of plaintiff No.3. The defendant has already produced the certified copy of the said sale deed dated 30.07.1973 at Ex.D-2. Therefore, production of original sale deed for the purpose of evidence in this case is not necessary. If the defendant wants to seek for appointment of Commissioner for verification of the signature in the sale deed, he can do so by filing a separate application. When the defendant himself has produced the certified copy of the original sale deed dated 30.07.1973, he ought - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7411 WP No. 13738 of 2023 not to have filed an application seeking for a direction to plaintiff No.3 to produce original sale deed. Therefore, the Trial Court after considering all these aspects has rightly rejected the said application filed by the defendant. 5. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42