- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 105094 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O. MAHALINGAPPA TAVARAGONDI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. YALLAPUR-Y.T. HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA HOLAL AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. YALLAPUR-Y.T. HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA HOLAL SINCE DEAD, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 ARE LRs. OF DECEASED R2. 3. SMT. SHARAWWA @ NIRMALA W/O. NAGAPPA HOLAL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YALLAPUR-Y.T HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SMT. NINGAMMA @ NIRMALA W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA SUNKADAVAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. NEELAGUND, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETANKUMAR R.PUJARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:42:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR ON IA NOS.15, 16 AND 17 IN O.S.NO.110/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"H" AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the common order passed on I.A.Nos.15 to 17. I.A.No.15 is filed to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. I.A.No.16 is filed to re-open plaintiff's case. I.A.No.17 is filed seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents. The said applications are contested by the respondents. The trial Court having examined the averments made in the applications has declined to grant any indulgence. Trial Court referring to the additional documents which is partition deed dated 11.01.2007 has come to conclusion that plaintiffs having filed a suit seeking relief of partition cannot place reliance on a partition deed more particularly when the trial is concluded - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 and the matter is posted for arguments. Accordingly, the applications are rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records. It is quite strange to note that the further proceedings are stayed and the same is operating since 2018. 3. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the order impugned, this Court finds itself compelled to observe that the present case presents a rather peculiar and perplexing scenario. The plaintiff, having instituted the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, has categorically pleaded that both the plaintiff and the defendants constitute an undivided Hindu Joint Family and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is on this foundational assertion that the entire claim of partition is predicated. However, in a surprising turn of events, after the conclusion of trial and at the stage when the matter was posted for final - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 arguments, the plaintiff filed an application seeking leave of the Court to produce an unregistered partition deed, an act that fundamentally contradicts the plaintiff’s own pleadings. 4. This Court is constrained to remark that such conduct by the plaintiff is not only inconsistent with the original case set up in the pleadings but also undermines the credibility of the claim. By seeking to rely upon a partition deed, the plaintiff appears to have shifted positions, almost assuming the role of a defendant contesting jointness, rather than maintaining the stance of a party seeking partition on the assertion that there is no severance in the family by metes and bounds. Such contradictory conduct is not only procedurally impermissible but also conceptually flawed. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that parties must stand or fall by the case they have pleaded. Documents sought to be relied upon during trial or at any stage of proceedings must necessarily be in consonance - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 with the pleadings. To permit parties to introduce material that directly negates their own assertions would lead to an erosion of judicial discipline and would prejudice the fair adjudication of the case. In the present matter, where the central issue revolves around the plaintiff’s ability to establish the absence of prior partition and continued jointness, the reliance on an unregistered partition deed particularly at the eleventh hour serves only to create confusion and is rightly held by the trial Court as being irrelevant to the effective adjudication of the dispute. 6. This Court is therefore of the view that procedural consistency and adherence to one’s pleadings are fundamental to the administration of justice, and parties cannot be permitted to adopt a fluid or shifting stand by placing reliance on documents that are diametrically opposed to their pleaded case. 7. Least said better, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. The order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6059 WP No. 105094 of 2018 8. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16