- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100563 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O FAKKIRAPPA BEDARE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NEAR BASAPPA KHANAVALI, COURT CIRCLE, DHARWAD-580 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B.ANCHATAGERI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAJU SHANKARAO AMBORE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SAI KRUPA, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-580 008. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BENGALURU, NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. 3. SRI. HEMANTH S/O BABU GURLHOSUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O MARATHA COLONY, OPP.MALLASAJJAN, VYAM SHALA, DHARWAD-580 008. 4. SRI MAJID KHAN S/O RUSTOMKAHAN KITTUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SAIDAPUR, NEAR DUMMAGIRI, DHARWAD-580 008. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 5. SRI. JAMIR HUSSAIN S/O SHABUDDIN MUKTI, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NEAR TAVARGERE NURSING, HOME, DHARWAD-580 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KAMALAKAR.M.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIKANTH.T.PATIL AND SRI. ROHIT.S.PATIL., ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI., ADVOCATE R2; R3-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.S.B.Anchatageri., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Kamalakar M.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shrikant T.Patil., and Sri.Rohit S.Patil., for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivaraj C.Bellakki., counsel for respondent No.2 appeared in person. 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on I.A.No.12 in Election Petition No. 1/2021 vide Annexure-L and consequently, seeking a direction to be issued to the Court for passing suitable order on I.A.Nos.4 and 7. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 3. The short facts are these: The first respondent filed the election petition. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC r/w Section 33 of the KMC Act, 1976 for rejection of a petition for non-compliance of Section 33 of the KMC Act, 1976. The first respondent did not file objections to the said application. The petitioner filed one more application in I.A.No.7 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC and Rule 70 of KMC (Election) Rules, 1979 contending that the security deposit/ cost of Rs.200/- was not deposited. The 1st respondent filed his objections to I.A.No.7. The Trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2022 passed the order on I.A.No.4 and 7 and concluded that the applications will be considered along with the main case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.104082/2022 and the same was allowed on 18.10.2022 and direction was given to the Trial Court to first verify whether a sum of Rs.200/- has been deposited and the same was reflected in the KTC-25 report. Thereafter, the Trial Court finds that as per the office endorsement dated 05.11.2022, there is no such deposit. Thereafter on 08.12.2022 the Trial Court passed the order on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 I.A.Nos.4 and 7 are to be considered along with the merits. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.105761/2022 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 09.10.2023 and directed the Trial Court to decide I.A.Nos.4 and 7 following law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in S.Shekhar v/s Commissioner and Returning Officer, Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore and others reported in 1999 (1) KLJ 98(DB). As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent filed an application in I.A.No.12 under Section 151 of CPC and sought permission to lead evidence on I.A.Nos.4 and 7 and the same was allowed. This order is called in question on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 5. Sri.S.B.Anchatageri., counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Trial Court is arbitrary, perverse and untenable in law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 Next, he submits that the Trial Court has erred in allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on I.A.No.4 and 7. A further submission is made that the order allowing respondent No.1 to lead evidence on the applications is contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.105761/2022 and also to Rule 70 of KMC (Election) Rules 1979. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order passed by the Trial Court is bad in law. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed. 6. Counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass and relates to the permission accorded by the Trial Court to respondent No.1 to lead evidence on interim applications. It is pivotal to note that this Court on an earlier occasion, directed the Trial Court to dispose of the applications following law bearing in mind the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 1999 (1) KLJ 98. The Court overlooked this aspect of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4698 WP No. 100563 of 2024 the matter and erroneously permitted the 1st respondent to lead evidence on the interim applications. In my view, the evidence is not required to consider the applications. The permission accorded is contrary to Rule 70 of KMC (Election) Rules 1979. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on I.A.No.12 in Election Petition No.1/2021 filed by the present respondent No.1 vide Annexure- L is quashed. 9. A gentle reminder is issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the interim applications as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.105761/2022 as expeditiously as possible. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 63