- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2594 WP No. 100928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100928 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI MANJUNATH S/O SHANMUKAPPA ULLATTI AGE 43 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE & PRIVATE WORK R/O GAVISHREE NAGAR KOPPAL, TQ AND DISRICT KOPPAL …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O ERAPPA KAVALUR AGE 57 YEARS OCC AGRICULURE R/O 3RD CROSS, GAVISHREE NAGAR KOPPAL TQ AND DIST KOPPAL. 2. SHRI PRADEEP S/O VEERUPAKSHAPPA @ VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA MALIPATIL AGE 53 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O KAVALUR VILLAGE KOPPAL TQ AND DIST KOPPAL 3. 4. SHRI GIRIDHARAGOUDA K N S/O MARALASIDDANGOUDA AGE 37 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O J.H PATEL NAGAR KINNAL ROAD KOPPAL TQ AND DIST KOPPAL SMT. CHANNAWWA W/O SHANMUKAPPA ULLATTI AGE 76 YEARS OCC HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O GAVISHREE NAGAR KOPPAL, TQ AND DISRICT KOPPAL …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 10.2.2025) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2594 WP No. 100928 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING ORDER PASSED ON 12-12-2024 (SIGNED ON 17/12/2025) ON I.A.NO.7 AND 8 IN O.S.NO.58/2020 BY THE HON BLE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT KOPPAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. 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 respondents 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, order or direction, in the nature of writ of certiorari, by quashing order passed on 12.12.2024 (singed on 17.12.2025) on I.A.No.7 and 8 in O.S.No.58/2020 by the Hon’ble Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Koppal, vide Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Pass such other order or orders that are deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner is plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.58/2020 filed seeking for declaration of ownership, declaration that certain sale deeds are not binding on the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2594 WP No. 100928 of 2025 plaintiffs, and consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 4. The above petition has been filed only by plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.1 not being available has been arraigned as respondent No.4. 5. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 16, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for issuance of summons to the Tahsildar, Koppal for production of two documents, one of them being an application submitted by defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 jointly pertaining to the land in question as also the original Namune issued by Tahsildar in respect of the said land in pursuance of the said application. 6. Another application was filed seeking for summoning certain documents from Regional Transport Officer Koppal, one of them being the rent agreement - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2594 WP No. 100928 of 2025 submitted by plaintiff No.2 to the Regional Transport Officer dated 10th April, 2012, and the other being a similar agreement dated 7th May, 2012. The Trial Court having allowed both the applications, the Petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. The submission of Sri.Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that those documents are not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the lis between the parties, inasmuch as the contention of the petitioner-plaintiff is that, revenue entries have been falsely created in pursuance of which sale deeds have been falsely executed, and as such the revenue entries would not create any right in favour of defendant No.1. 8. Having perused the application/s, it is seen that the application/s submitted to the Tahsildar was both by defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2. Whether in fact - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2594 WP No. 100928 of 2025 plaintiff No.2 has signed and submitted the said document or not, would have to be ascertained after the documents are produced. At this stage, it cannot be said that the documents are not relevant for the adjudication of disputes, inasmuch as they relate to the subject property, and have been stated to have been submitted by plaintiff No.2 also. No grounds therefore having been made out, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate all defences in respect of those documents as and when produced. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27