- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13058 WP No. 106376 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106376 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VITTAL S/O. KALLAPPA DODDAPPAGOL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSUR, TAL. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SURYAKANT S/O. KOLLOLEPPA MANG @ HUCCHAPPAGOL, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSUR, TAL. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP 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 ON IA NO.3 DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.3/2022 ON THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BANAHATTI (ANNEXURE-G), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13058 WP No. 106376 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order on IA No.3 dated 24.02.2025 passed in Civil Misc.No.3/2022 on the Civil Judge and JMFC., Banahatti (Annexure-G), in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 3. Petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.100/2018 seeking for injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with and or encroaching the portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. In the said suit, an interim order was passed on IA No.1 dated 13.06.2019 and the defendants were restrained from further encroaching the suit land till the disposal of the suit by way of temporary injunction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13058 WP No. 106376 of 2025 4. Subsequently the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No.3/2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for action to be taken against the respondent/defendant for contempt of the orders of the Court. 5. In the said proceedings, IA No.3 was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a direction to summon the Commissioner, Rabakavi- Banahatti City Municipality, Rampur as a witness and to produce all the documents pertaining to the inspection report in the year 2021, as regards the construction by the respondent and the details of the construction which had been carried out. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri.Prashant Kadadevar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inspection having been carried out by the Commissioner, Rabakavi-Banahatti - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13058 WP No. 106376 of 2025 Municipal Corporation, all the documents are available with the said Commissioner in his office and therefore he was required to be summoned as a witness to depose as regards the extent of construction made by the respondent by encroaching the property of the petitioner. 7. I am unable to agree with the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as a Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation cannot be summoned at the whims and fancies of a litigant just because he wants such a Municipal Commissioner to depose in his favour. What the petitioner essentially requires is only the documents, which documents are public documents. The petitioner could always apply for certified copies of the same in the concerned Office and if the certified copies are not made available, to apply for the same under the Right to Information Act and produce the same in any Court proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13058 WP No. 106376 of 2025 8. If all the litigants were to seek for appearance of Government officials to depose on their behalf, then the Government officials will not be able to discharge their functions. Only the documents being required, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. It is for the petitioner to establish by independent evidence as regards the encroachment made of the petitioner's land. 10. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE Sh Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20