- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:943 WP No. 100239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100239 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT DAKSHAYANI D/O. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MATALDINN MATALDINN HOBLI, TALUK. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583237 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKARSH MITTALKOD REP BY SRI. S.H.MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI KUMAR SWAMI S/O. BASAPPA AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT 5, 15TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040 …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO. 7 TO 9 DATED. 19- 12-2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE, KOPPAL IN M C NO. 30/2021 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:943 WP No. 100239 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondent is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order on I.A. No. 7 to 9 dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Principal Family Court Judge, Koppal, in M.C.No.30/2021 at Annexure-A. b. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. What is under challenge by the petitioner is an order dated 19.12.2024 passed on applications under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting the respondent herein to produce a Compact Disc (CD) containing certain electronic documents, which came to be allowed by the aforesaid order. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:943 WP No. 100239 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once earlier a compact disc had been produced by the respondent and now again another compact disc is sought to be produced, stating that there is a technical error in the earlier compact disc. His further submission is that the electronic data produced in the second compact disc is the same as that produced along with the first compact disc. 5. Even if the submission is accepted, it is always available for the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent as regards the identicalness of the electronic data produced and if the same is established, the trial Court would be well within its jurisdiction to eschew the compact disc even if produced and marked. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. With the above observations, the petitioner stands disposed of. SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE