- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103626 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DEVAKI W/O RAJKUMAR NADAGOUDA, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YALAWAR, TQ. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 2. SMT. CHANDRALEKHA @ CHANDRAKALA W/O BASAVARAJ SASANUR, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.9, NEW VEGETABLE MARKET, SASANURU, VAKAR, DIST. BAGALKOT. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O SIDDANAGOUDA MUDANUR AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BIJAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. BIJAPUR. 2. SMT. DRAKASHAYANI W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHINCHOLLI, TQ. SURAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR. 3. SMT. SARASWATI W/O SURESHBABU NADAGOUDAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.18 07:57:06 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 R/O. BIJAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. BIJAPUR. 4. SMT. LAXMI W/O SOMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHINCHOLLI, TQ. SURAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR. 5. SMT. SHANTA W/O SAHEBAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. BIJAPUR. 6. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O MAHANTESH PATIL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BIJAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR. 7. B. MALAPANI TRADERS TRADERS IN PLASTIC ITEMS, WARD NO.7, CTS NO.596, KAPPAD BAZAR ROAD, BAGALKOT. 8. ANAND S/O NINGAPPA SASANUR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SASANUR WAKAR, M.G. ROAD, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANASI P. JIGAJINNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.21 AND 22 IN O.S. NO.6/2016 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAGALKOT. THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the application for summoning the document dated 07.08.2006. 2. Petitioner claims that the said document is a memorandum of partition between the petitioner and respondents. The respondents object to the said document on the ground that the document is not registered and not adequately stamped. 3. Application is filed on the premise that the respondents/plaintiffs have objected to marking the said document on the premise that the document is the Xerox copy. Hence, the petitioner/defendant filed an application to summon the original from the Revenue Department. The Trial Court rejected the document on two grounds: (a) Document is not registered; (b) Document is not properly stamped. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the document is a memorandum of partition and does not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 require registration. It is also his further contention that the document is properly stamped. Alternatively, he would submit that even if the document is not properly stamped, he can get the document impounded and get it marked. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the document does require registration and it is not on a stamp paper, as such, it is inadmissible in evidence. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. On going through the pleadings, it appears that there is no dispute relating to the signature on the document. The dispute is on the premise that the document placed before the Court is not an original. If the original is secured, the contention that the document is not an original will have to be given up. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that objection relating to the xerox copy is waived by the plaintiffs and she would further submit that the plaintiffs would still urge the contention that the document is inadmissible for want of registration and sufficient - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 stamp duty. This being the position the original document need not be summoned. The xerox can be admitted in evidence subject to condition referred to below. 9. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.21 and 22 in O.S. No.6/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot is modified. (ii) There is no need to secure the original document from the Revenue Department. (iii) The document placed before the Court shall be marked, notwithstanding the fact that it is a xerox copy provided, the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is adequately stamped. (iv) If the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is not adequately stamped, then Court has to proceed further as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act relating to insufficiently stamped document. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13847 WP No. 103626 of 2025 (v) Whether the document requires registration or not is the subject matter of evidence. The said objection shall be kept open to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. (vi) It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter and the document in question. (vii) Since, it is stated that parties to the proceedings are Senior Citizens, both the parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit. (viii) Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 69