YALLAPPA S/O BASAVANTAPPA SAVADATTI v. MAHADEV S/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI
WP/101560/2025 · 2025-02-28
Suraj Govindaraj
Original Suitbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44253 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44253 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4004 WP No. 101560 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101560 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
YALLAPPA S/O BASAVANTAPPA SAVADATTI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BILAKUNDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI AND SRI. SOURABH MIRJE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
MAHADEV S/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227.
2.
MAHADEVI W/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227.
3.
DEEPA S/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227.
4.
JYOTI S/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227.
5.
GEETA D/O PARASAPPA MADIHALLI AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4004 WP No. 101560 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/10/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.487/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
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 proposed order to be passed.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 15/10/2024 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.487/2022 vide Annexure-A.
b. Pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.
3. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.487 of 2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak seeking for specific performance of Agreement of Sale. The written statement has been filed. Defendants filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4004 WP No. 101560 of 2025
Civil Procedure calling upon the plaintiff to produce the original Consent Deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 dated 29.6.2020 in favour of the plaintiff. This application having been allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no such Consent Deed (Oppige Kararu Patra) has been executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. There being no such document not being in existence, the question of the petitioner producing the same would not arise. The matter now having been posted for compliance of the order dated
15.10.2024. The petitioner is apprehensive that some coercive orders could be passed against the petitioner for not producing the document.
5. Having heard to learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers.
6. It is seen that on an application made by the defendants, the plaintiff was asked to produce the
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4004 WP No. 101560 of 2025
original document, if the said document is not in existence as claimed by the defendants, the petitioner could always take up the said stand and make a submission before the trial Court that the plaintiff is unable to produce the said document. Once such a submission is made; there can be no adverse order, coercive steps taken against the petitioner.
7. If such a stand is taken, the defendants would be at liberty, if they have any photocopy of the said document, to seek for production of the same as secondary evidence in terms of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
8. No grounds being made out, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE ckk list no.: 1 sl no.: 9