- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103090 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI YOGESH RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR K.G. SCHOOL, MAVALLI-2 VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581 350. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRANAV FOR SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATES) AND: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, MURDESHWAR, BHATKAL TALUK, REPRESENTED BY IT’S 1. PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, BHATKAL TALUK-581 350. 2. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, BHATKAL TALUK-581 350. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13/02/2025 IN O.S. NO.66/2022, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL, ORDER ON I.A. NO.III FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER XVI RULE 1 AND 6 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER XVI RULE 1 AND 6 OF CPC., DATED 16/11/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Pranav on behalf of learned counsel R.H. Angadi for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.66/2022. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.66/2022. He filed the said suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants from dispossessing or evicting the plaintiff from the schedule premises. The plaintiff filed an application I.A.III under Section 151 and Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon the witness, produce documents and give evidence. This application was objected to by the respondents and the trial Court after hearing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 parties, rejected the application, which is questioned by the petitioner. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and the same deserves to be set aside, as the defendant/Gram Panchayat though admitted the lease with the petitioner, refused to produce the original lease deed and the lease agreement, as there was certain terms and conditions which are specified in the said document which are necessary to be relied by the plaintiff in the suit for injunction. It is his further contention that, if the witness is not summoned and the document is not produced, the plaintiff will be put to difficulty, hardship and inconvenience. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the order and consequently allow the application. 5. Upon hearing the petitioner, at the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court does not find any need for issuance of notice to the respondents/defendants, as this Court is not inclined to accept the petition nor pass any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 adverse orders against the respondents. While considering the application, the trial Court at para 9 of the impugned order has held that, the respondents/defendants have admitted in their written statement regarding the tenancy of the plaintiff and therefore it is well settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. It is also borne out from the impugned order that the document sought for by the petitioner is not necessary for adjudicating the dispute between the parties to the suit. On these grounds the trial Court rejected the application. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents–Gram Panchayat. In the written statement, the Gram Panchayat has admitted the tenancy of the petitioner and the same is not in dispute. The present application I.A.III is filed for production of documents and summoning witness to adduce - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 evidence of a document which is not in dispute. In a suit for permanent injunction, what is required to be seen is, whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and whether the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed without due process of law, which in fact is the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot go on tangent summoning the witness and for production of documents at his whims and fancies beyond the relief which is sought in the suit. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the fact that the suit is only for permanent injunction not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises without due process of law. Under the circumstances, when the respondents have admitted the possession and the lease, the question of summoning these documents would be inconsequential for deciding the suit. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Judge. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7951 WP No. 103090 of 2025 7. Accordingly, I pass the following order: This petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK