- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8902 WP No. 104401 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104401 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BALAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 2. KANAKAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 3. LAKSHMAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 4. GYANAWWA D/O. SHIVAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 5. HANUMAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 6. BHIMAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 7. GYANAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8902 WP No. 104401 of 2025 8. SANGAWWA W/O. GYANAPPA KAMBALI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BICHKAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 9. MAKKALEWWA W/O. ANGAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAKKALAKI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 10. HANAMAVVA W/O. GUDDEPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. NOTE 1: PETITIONER NO.1 TO 10 ARE DEFENDANTS NO.1 (A) AND 1 (B), D1C(A) TO D1C(D), 1(D) TO 1(G) REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SANGAPPA KARIGAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TENGUNTI, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. NOTE 2: THE DEFENDANT NO.1(C) DIED DURING PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND DEFENDANT NO.D1C(A) TO D1C(D) ARE LEGAL HEIRS ALREADY ON RECORD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNARAO S/O. RAGHAVENRACHAR @ RAGAVENDRA RAO KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BICHKAL VILLAGE, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 2. SRI. GYANAPPA S/O. GYANAPPA JENAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 3. SRI. BHEEMAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA KARIGAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8902 WP No. 104401 of 2025 4. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. GOOLAPPA UNDODI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. 5. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA METI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TENGUNTI, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16-06-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.30 AND I.A. NO.31 IN O.S. NO. 158/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHTAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. The matter is taken up for consideration, pending the objections raised by the Registry at the request of the counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the defendants. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.158/2010 for declaration and injunction in respect of suit schedule property therein. The defendants filed their objections and sought for dismissal of the suit by raising several pleas. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8902 WP No. 104401 of 2025 During the pendency of the suit, proceedings in I.A.No.30 was filed under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC by the defendants to call for original document i.e., Exs.P26 and 27. This application came to be rejected by a reasoned order. Along with this application, another application I.A.No.31 under order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by the defendants to refer Ex.P26 and 27 for expert opinion, regarding age proof of writing of alphabets, which was newly entered in the record of rights, came to be dismissed by the trial Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants. Perused the impugned order, and the reasons assigned by the trial Court. 4. At paragraph No.7, the trial Court has in detail discussed as to why the application deserves to be dismissed by considering the provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. I do not find any good ground or cogent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8902 WP No. 104401 of 2025 reason to interfere with the well reasoned order while rejecting the application. Considering these 2 documents to be public documents, certified copies of the same can be obtained by any party, including the defendants. With regard to I.A.No.30, the question is whether the defendants filed an application to refer these documents i.e., Ex.26 and 27, for a forensic expert opinion. Even this application has been considered in accordance to the provisions of Sections 74 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The onus lies on the defendants to produce and prove these documents to establish their case. 5. I do not find any error, illegality or arbitrariness in consideration of these 2 applications. Accordingly, these 2 applications do not merit admission at the preliminary stage. I find no merit in the case on hand. Hence this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72