- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15991 WP No. 101419 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101419 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MADHURI W/O. PANDURANGSA RANGAREJ, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING, R/O. HOUSE NO.158/B, WARD NO.10, BAGALKOT-587 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AMEET S/O. JAGADISH SURE, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE TRADE, R/O. WARD NO.9, BAGALKOT-587 101. 2. SAVITA W/O. JAGADISH SURE, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.9, BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. SWETA D/O. JAGADISH SURE, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.25 11:59:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15991 WP No. 101419 of 2021 R/O. WARD NO.9, BAGALKOT-587 101. 4. AASTHA D/O. JAGADISH SURE, AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.9, BAGALKOT-587 101, (SINCE MINOR R/BY HER NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.2 SAVITA). 5. JAGADISH S/O. GANAPATRAO SURE, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE TRADE, R/O. WARD NO.9, BAGALKOT-587 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) 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 23.02.2021 AND ORDER DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT (ANNEXURE-E) IN O.S. NO.124/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15991 WP No. 101419 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.02.2021 overruling the objection to mark the documents. 2. Plaintiff intended to mark four documents. Two documents are said to be the certified copies of the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.2. It is not in dispute that all the four documents are pertaining to the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for 2nd defendant who is the petitioner before this Court would submit that in case the documents are marked in the evidence of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant will not be in a position to summon and cross examine the officers who have executed the Hakku Patras. 4. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the application was filed to mark the documents on earlier occasion but the same was rejected on the premise that the documents are not in compliance with the rules governing the Right to Information Act, 2005 under which the documents are issued. In addition, he would also submit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15991 WP No. 101419 of 2021 that an application is filed to summon the documents from the custodian and the process fee is not paid despite the application being allowed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would defend the impugned order. 6. It is submitted by the petitioner that process fee was paid pursuant to the application to summon the records. Despite service of notice, the person has not appeared pursuant to the Court notice. It is also submitted that all the four documents referred to above are the documents pertaining to the suit property. 7. Admittedly, one of the said deeds is in favour of the petitioner. Since the documents are the certified copies and the plaintiff not being the custodian of the documents and the documents being the records kept in public office, the plaintiff is permitted to produce the certified copies and the said documents shall be marked in evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15991 WP No. 101419 of 2021 8. Merely because the documents are marked, it does not mean that the proof of the documents is established. It has to be proved in the manner known to law. 9. In case the petitioner intends to cross examine any of the witnesses concerning to the aforementioned documents, the petitioner is at liberty to summon those witnesses provided the petitioner is able to establish that their evidence is relevant for adjudication of the case. 10. With these observations, the Court does not intend to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, following: ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48