- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 100239 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ANKUSH TUKARAM CHAVAN AGE. 52 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. SHIRAGUPPI TAL. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. ARAVIND PURANDAR MURABATTE AGE. 77 YEARS OCC. EX-SERVICEMEN R/O. CMC NO. 4427, SHIVAJI NAGAR NIPANI, TAL. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-591237. 2. APPASO PURANDAR MURABATTE AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. CMC NO. 4427, SHIVAJI NAGAR NIPANI, TAL. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-591237. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.02.21 12:29:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 3. SMT. VIJAYA W/O. BHARAT PATIL AGE. 60 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. BHOJ, TAL. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-591263. 4. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O. AJIT MURABATTE AGE. 52 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. CMC NO. 4427 SHIVAJI NAGAR NIPANI, TAL. CHIKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-591237. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO, WHEREFORE THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7/12/2021 PASSED ON IA NO.XIV IN OS 75/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NIPPANI VIDE ANNEXURE-E, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed, challenging the order dated 07.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.XIV in O.S.No.75/2017 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents in O.S.No.75/2017 for a specific performance of the contract. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement. Other respondents adopted the written statement filed by respondent No.2. I.A.No.XIV is filed by the respondents to produce a notorised copy of the sale deed dated 30.10.2001 as a secondary evidence. The petitioner opposed the said application by filing the objections. The trial Court, allowed I.A.XIV. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order on I.A.XIV, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the evidence of the petitioner was not concluded, the respondents’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 evidence is yet to commence and the alleged document, which is sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence, could be produced by the respondents during their own evidence. He submits that, the burden is on the petitioner to prove his case regarding the execution of the sale agreement. He submits that the burden is on the petitioner to prove the execution of a sale agreement. The said aspect was not considered by the Court below and committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract. The respondents filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and also denied the execution of a sale agreement, and receipt. It is contended that, the petitioner has forged the said document by photocopying the signatures of the respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 The respondents have got issued a legal notice to one Dattatray and Narayan Baburao Tarale of Nippani, as they are the custodians of the registered sale deed and requested them to produce the same before the Court. On 7.8.2018, the said Narayan Babu Rao Tarale brought the original sale deed before the Court and submitted the notarised copy of the original sale deed dated 30.10.2001 and requested to verify and return the same. The respondents wanted to place reliance on the notarised copy of the original sale deed dated 30.10.2001. The petitioner objected for marking the said document. The respondents, before marking the said document, have taken all the steps to secure the original registered sale deed dated 30.10.2001. Narayan Baburao Tarale is the custodian of the original sale deed, but he did not produce the original sale deed despite service of Court notice. The trial Court has recorded a finding that, though an arrest warrant was issued, Narayan Baburao Tarale submitted that, the original sale deed was lost, probably at the instance of the petitioner, who did not want to produce before the Court. The respondents produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed, but the same does not bear the signature of the parties. The respondents have no other - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2471 WP No. 100239 of 2022 choice, except to produce a xerox copy of the document. Further, the trial Court considered Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, and held that the documents produced by the respondents is to be taken as secondary evidence as the original was lost, as contended by Narayan Baburao Tarale, and rightly passed the impugned order. I do not find any grounds, to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The Writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE rs CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24