- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15214 WP No. 108274 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108274 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RUDRAPPA S/O IRANNA KOPPAD, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BASAVVA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA KATTEPPANAVAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. LALITA W/O IRANNA KOPPAD, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 3. SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA S/O IRANNA KOPPAD, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 4. SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KOPPAD, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 5. SHRI DYAMANNA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KOPPAD, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15214 WP No. 108274 of 2025 R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 6. SHRI DYAMAVVA W/O SOMANNA @ SOMAPPA HADDAPPANAVAR @ KOLLUR, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DIST. DHARWAD. 7. SHRI NEELAVVA @ YAMANAVVA W/O BASAPPA MELAMANI @ MELMANI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOLUR-581 112, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI. 8. SHRI IRAVVA @ NELAVVA W/O BASAPPA NELANNAVAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MARADAGI-580 112, DHARWAD. 9. SHRI KAMALAVVA W/O YELLAPPA BELLIGATTI @ GABBUR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. UGGANAKERI-581 196, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/01/2025 AND 18/08/2025 ON IA DATED 11/06/2024 AND ON IA NO.11 DATED 10/07/2024 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2/PETITIONER HEREIN PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DHARWAD (ANNEXURE-J AND J1) IN O.S. 460/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15214 WP No. 108274 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order on Interim Application dated 11.06.2024 and another application dated 10.07.2024 filed by defendant No.2 who is the petitioner before this Court. 2. In terms of the said order, interim application dated 11.06.2024 to secure the handwriting expert's opinion is rejected. 3. Another application dated 10.07.2024 at I.A.No.11 is to summon the original document from the Office of the Tahsildar which allegedly bears the thumb impression of plaintiff- Bassavva is rejected. 4. The application to secure the handwriting expert's opinion is rejected on the premise that application to secure handwriting expert’s opinion is not yet allowed. Later the application to secure expert’s opinion is rejected on the premise that the document which is sought to be sent for handwriting expert's opinion is only xerox copy and that not being the primary document cannot be sent for forensic expert's opinion. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15214 WP No. 108274 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner made an attempt to secure the original from the office of the Tahsildar and that is rejected because the application to secure the expert's opinion is still pending consideration. 6. What is required to be noticed is whether the document serves any purpose? Whether the opinion of the expert serves any purpose? 7. The suit is one for partition. The plaintiff claims that through the unregistered document (a Vardi) said to have been signed by Basavva, the Basavva’s right over the immovable property is transferred in favour of defendant No.2/petitioner. Defendant No.2/petitioner is not the Class-I heir of Basavva. 8. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the alleged thumb impression of Basavva in the Vardi, even if it is said to be of Basavva, does not serve the purpose, as no right is created in favour of defendant No.2 based on alleged Vardi. Hence, there is no point in summoning the said document and securing the opinion of the expert. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15214 WP No. 108274 of 2025 9. For this reason, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25