- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 104039 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. UDAY S/O. GOVIND VELANGI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 53/B, SOMWARPETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-01. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BASAVARAJESHWARI KENGAL, ADV. FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GAJANAN S/O. GOVIND VELANGI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SOMAWARPETH, TILAKWADI-590001. 2. M/S. UDAY METAL INDUSTRY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT: NO.10/2, MADHAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR. 3. M/S. U. G. ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT: NO.10/2, MADHAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 4. SMT. LAXMI W/O. GAJANAN VELANGI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: PLOT NO.53, SOMWARPETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. M/S. DURGA CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DURGA RESIDENCY, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD, SHAHPUR, BELAGAVI-590001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. 6. SHRI KRISHNAYYA SHIVARAM HEGDE, AGE: MAJOR, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O: DURGA RESIDENCY, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD SHAHPUR, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SRI. P. B. PONNAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O: DURGA RESIDENCY, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD SHAHPUR, BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SMT. SUDHA W/O. RAMRAO DALAVI, AGE: 85 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: “SAMARTHA CHAYA” PARSHWANATHA NAGAR, SANGLI, MAHARASTRA. 9. SMT. VIBHA W/O. SADANAND SAMANT, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SAMACHAR BUILDING, NARGUNDKAR BHAVE CHOWK, BELAGAVI-590001. 10. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SHIVANAND KINI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 9, KRISHNA SADAN, SHEETALDEVI TEMPLE ROAD, MOGHAL LINE, MAHIM, MUMBAI-400003, MAHARASTRA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 11. SMT. SHAILA W/O. VILAS NARGUNDKAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O: IST BLOCK, BHANU CO-OP SOCIETY, NEAR TANDULWADI, DOMBIWALI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400003. 12. SMT. REKHA W/O. RAMESH NERURKAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SUKH NIVAS CO-OP SOCIETY, 10TH PRABHAT ROAD, PUNE-411000, MAHARASTRA. 13. SMT. LATA W/O. PRAKASH KAMAT, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: H. NO. 501, SIDDHI VINAYAK ROAD, AGAR BAZAR, DADAR, MUMBAI-400003, MAHARASTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, AND SRI. SREEVATSA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 AND R4; NOTICE TO R2 AND R13 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2022 IN O.S. NO. 37/2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI ALLOWING I.A NO. 31 AND DISMISS THE I.A. BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction and set aside the order dated 08/08/2022 in O.S. No.37/2008 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Belagavi allowing I.A No.31 and dismiss the I.A. by allowing the writ petition and/or; b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Smt. Basavarajeshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and others have filed a suit for partition against the defendants and in the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application seeking direction to the petitioner to produce original copy of the partition deed dated 27.10.1973 and the said application came to be allowed by the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has taken specific stand that there is no partition between the family and also filed a memo indicating that the plaintiff No.6 is not in the custody of the original partition deed dated 27.10.1973. It is further submitted that the trial Court has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 recorded a finding that the document is very much necessary to prove the real controversy between the parties and mere filing a memo is not sufficient and proceeded to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Abhilash Hanamannavar and Sri. Shreevatsa Hegde learned counsels appearing for the respondents No.1 and 4 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the xerox copy of the partition deed is produced before the trial Court and the said document is crucial to decide the issue in the pending suit. It is submitted that a categorical statement is made in the application that the original partition deed is in the custody of plaintiff No.6. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner and other five filed a suit in OS No.37/2008 for relief of partition and separate possession. It is a specific case of the petitioner and the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the joint family property and there is no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 partition among the family members. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 16 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking direction to the plaintiff No.6 to produce original partition deed dated 27.10.1973. The petitioner in response filed a memo stating that he did not have the partition deed. The trial Court rejected the memo and allowed the application. The affidavit and the application filed for production of the document indicate that the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 made a family partition with regard to the suit schedule property on 27.10.1973 and the original copy of the partition deed is given to the plaintiff No.6. The plaintiff No.6 filed a memo making a categorical statement that he is not in custody of the alleged original partition deed dated 27.10.1973. The contention of the petitioner in the suit as well as in the memo is that there is no partition and the alleged partition deed is not in his custody. Having taken the said stand, in my considered view, the trial Court has committed an error in directing the plaintiff No.6 to produce the original deed without holding any enquiry with regard to the possession of the said instrument with him. If the defendant is able to establish that the plaintiff No.6 is in possession of the original partition deed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12773 WP No. 104039 of 2022 during the course of proceedings in the pending suit, it is always open for the trial Court to draw the adverse inference against the plaintiff No.6. 6. With the above observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed in O.S No.37/2008, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi on I.A No.31 is set aside. Consequently, I.A No.31 is rejected. iii. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4