- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621 WP No. 107367 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107367 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI JARARKHAN, S/O VALIDADKHAN PATHAN AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O H.NO.3847, MEHER MANJIL, MESTRI GALLI, NIPANI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE SHREEVATSA SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SANJAY GANAPAT POL AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O BIDWADI, TQ. KANKAVLI, DIST. SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA 416 602. VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.10.06 10:23:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621 WP No. 107367 of 2025 2. SHRI ABUBAKKAR @ IMTIYAZ DADMOHAMMED SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S SAMINA KHAN ABUBAKAR @ IMTIYAZ PATHAN AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. FAIZULHAZ ABUBAKAR @ IMTIYAZ PATHAN AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, BOTH R/O FIDAHUSSAIN MANZIL, 1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO.27, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.49 BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NIPPANI IN OS NO.20/2017 (ERSTWHILE OS NO.144/2013) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN LIST DT. 10/10/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C3; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY ON ANNEXURE-C3. AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621 WP No. 107367 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The plaintiff in O.S. No.20/2017 (Old O.S. No.144/2013) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), is before this Court challenging the correctness of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed on I.A. No.49, by which the application filed by him under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 and Section 30(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected. 2. The suit in O.S. No.20/2017 (Old O.S. No.144/2013) was filed for declaration that the gift in favour of defendant No.1 and the consequent sale in favour of defendant No.2 was void and for other reliefs. Long after the trial in the suit was concluded and when the suit was listed for the reply arguments of the plaintiff, an application (I.A. NO.49) was filed by the plaintiff for summoning certain documents from the custody of defendant No.2. This application was opposed by defendant No.2 on the ground that the documents sought to be summoned were already produced by defendant No.2 and that the application was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621 WP No. 107367 of 2025 designed only the delay the proceedings and harass defendant No.2. The Trial Court noticing the conduct of the plaintiff rejected the application in terms of the impugned order. While doing so, the Trial Court has held as follows: “It is pertinent to note here that, the matter is already posted for reply arguments and at this stage, the plaintiff engaging another counsel has moved these applications at the fag end of the trial, when the matter is almost about to be set- down to judgment. On one or the another pretext, the plaintiff is causing delay in this matter, which implies his intention of unwillingness to co-operate with the court proceedings, which is leading to abuse of court proceedings and further, allowing such applications will only cause mockery of justice and nothing else.” “This matter is the direction matter from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka wherein it is directed for the disposal of this matter within two weeks from the date of the order in W.P. No.106058/2025.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents summoned were pertinent and necessary to decide the suit. He contends that the plaintiff had changed his advocate who advised him to file the application to summon the documents. He contends that no hardship or inconvenience - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621 WP No. 107367 of 2025 would be caused to defendant No.2 if the documents were summoned. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not disputed the correctness of the observations of the Trial Court which is extracted above. These observations are felling and indicate the dilatory tactics adopted by the plaintiff. 5. In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to urge this as a ground in an appeal that may be filed against any judgment and decree that may be passed in the suit. Pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16