- 1 - CP No. 100148/2025 Reserved on : 19.08.2025 Pronounced on : 29.08.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL PETITION NO.100148 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MADHU S/O. YALLAPPA NAYAR AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O. NO.22, MALLIKARJUN NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD-580006. 2. SRI. RAJU S/O. YALLAPPA NAYAR AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GANGA ELITIES (APARTMENT) BESIDE DOMINOS PIZZA, BEHIND APPOLO PHARMACY, TOLL NAKA P.B. ROAD, DAHRWAD. 3. NANDAKESHAV URF ADHRIT NAYAR AGED ABOUT MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER, I.E., PETITIONER NO.1 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI VEERAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KADAMPUR, AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, 2 . SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. VEERAPPA KADAMPUR, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.30 12:03:46 +0530 - 2 - CP No. 100148/2025 AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O. H.NO.179, 5TH NAGAR, C.B. NAGAR, NEAR ARAVINDO SCHOOL, DHARWAD-580007. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R1 AND R2) THIS CP FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC., PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE G AND WC NO.10/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD TO THE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD, RESERVED ON 19.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This petition by the petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is seeking transfer of case G & WC No.10 of 2023, pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Hubballi for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 2. It is stated in the petition that the trial Court has failed to conduct fair and proper trial. There is violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the conduct of - 3 - CP No. 100148/2025 the Court is totally biased in favour of respondents. The same would not lead to fair and free trial and thus the petitioners herein would suffer great injustice if the trial continues before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad. He would submit that the trial Court has not recorded the admissions/answer given by the witness as it is or with its true meaning and context. Instead, the Court has started recording the answers in a different way. Despite the Counsel for the petitioners insisting the Court multiple times to record the answer as it is without changing its nature, the Court below has continued to record the answers as per its convenience and out of context, which would create negative impact on the case. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioners have no faith over the Court due to the conduct of the Court and the way in which the trial conducted by the Court below. He would submit that the Court has behaved in a biased manner while recording the evidence. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the petition. 3. Along with the petition, the petitioners have produced the copy of petition filed under Section 7 and 25 of Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 by Veerappa and Smt. Sulochana - 4 - CP No. 100148/2025 Kadampur against Nandakeshav and to others in G & WC No.10 of 2023. Copy of the objection filed by respondents and the certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to the said case are filed. Copy of affidavit filed by Madhu s/o Yallappa Nayar, is also filed. It is relevant to mention here the contents of the affidavit filed by Madhu s/o Yallappa Nayar. The same reads thus: “EzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀÄ vÀAzÉ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà £ÁAiÀÄgÀ ªÀAiÀiÁ: 44 ªÀµÀð GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ¸Á: ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ gÀ¸ÉÛ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¸ÀvÀå ¥ÀæweÉÕAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ K£ÉAzÀgÉ. 1. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA:2 CAvÁ EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ªÀiÁ»w £À£ÀUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ £Á£ÀÄ F ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. 2. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ 21 CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA:2£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀ ¥Án ¸ÀªÁ°UÁV EAzÀÄ PÁ¬ÄÝj¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀQîgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA;2 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV “¤ªÀÄUÉ EAVèµï ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄÄ w½AiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÆà ºÉÃUÉ ? CAvÁ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ EAVèµÀ ¨sÁµÉ £À£ÀUÉ w½AiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV JgÀqÀÄ ¨ÁgÉ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà GzÉÝñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ½UÉ EAVèµÀ ¨ÁµÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÆà ºÉÃUÉ CAvÁ ¥ÀzÉà - 5 - CP No. 100148/2025 ¥ÀzÉà ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¥ÉæÃjvÀªÁV ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉý ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß `§zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ jÃwAiÀÄÄ CfðzÁgÀ½UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ F ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É EgÀĪÀ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw¬ÄAzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¹UÀĪÀ¢®è CAvÁ £À£ÀUÉ RavÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀªÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ EZÉÑAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 15 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄqÀĨÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw CAvÁ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæ.” 4. It is also relevant to mention here as to the observation made by the trial Court in its order dated 04th June, 2025. The same reads thus: “PW.1 present and counsel absent. SDY advocate present. Respondents No.1 to 3 and counsel absent, CB advocate present. Call later on. Case called out at 1.29pm. - 6 - CP No. 100148/2025 PW.1 present and counsel absent. SDY advocate present. Respondents No.1 to 3 absent and counsel P.P.Joshi advocate present and submits senior advocate will come at 3 pm for cross examination of PW.1 and prays to pass over matter. Call at 3pm. Case called out at 3.42pm. PW.1 and counsel present. Respondents No.1 and 3 absent and counsel P.P.Joshi advocate and respondent No.2 present. Respondent counsel P.P.Joshi advocate started cross examination of PW.1 and suggested only 2 questions and answer given by the witness are recorded by the court, but respondents advocate by name P.P.Joshi advocate started to behave arrogantly saying that the evidence is recorded wrongly and he has no faith on the court, even though it was told advocate that whatever answer given by the witness is properly recorded, but the advocate started to behave arrogantly using to unparliamentary words towards the presiding officer and also told that he will not cross examine PW.1 and he files affidavit and told the court in the high tone to pass over the matter. In this case since from the beginning the behavior of the respondents counsel by name P.P.Joshi advocate is not proper and he always behave arrogantly in the open court, even though same is taken in light way by the court. - 7 - CP No. 100148/2025 The cross examination of PW.1 deferred. Call later on. Case called out at 5.15pm. PW.1 and counsel present. Respondents No.1 and 3 absent and counsel P.P.Joshi advocate and respondent No.2 present filed affidavit and respondent No.2 contending that the evidence of petitioner No.2 is not recorded as disposed by the witness and he has not faith on the court and he has intended to transfer the case and he prays 15 days time. Only two questions are suggested to the witness by P.P.Joshi Advocate respondents and whatever deposed by the witness is properly recorded by the court, hence false allegation respondent No.2 in his affidavit, hence affidavit of respondent No.2 is not accepted. On enquiry respondents counsel, is not ready to cross-examine the PW.1 and shown the adamant nature, in spite of opportunity given respondents counsel is not ready to cross examine the PW.1, hence cross examination of the PW.1 is taken as nil. Afterwards petitioner counsel submits that IA No.18 is already filed for filing list of witness, while verifying the records by the court regarding IA No.18 the respondent counsel behaved adamantly and left the court along with respondent No.2 even before adjournment of the case. It is noticed from the records that on 01.04.2025 IA No.18 filed by the petitioner is already allowed. - 8 - CP No. 100148/2025 Hence issue summons to Chairman, Child Welfare Committee Dharwad, to give evidence on documents/minutes of proceedings in Case No.5186/23 and petitioner counsel is directed to pay PF and RPAD cover. Call on. 23.06.2025.” 5. Despite service of notice, respondents remain unrepresented. 6. The present petitioners have not challenged the order/observation made by the trial Court, before the competent Court. The copy of the evidence recorded by the trial Court is not produced by the petitioners. Perusal of the affidavit of Madhu s/o Yallappa Nayar reveals that the Court has asked questions and recorded his answers. The same is permissible under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which corresponds to Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reads as follows: “168. Judge's power to put questions or order production. The Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties - 9 - CP No. 100148/2025 about any fact; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their representatives shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Adhiniyam to be relevant, and duly proved: Provided further that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 127 to 136, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 151 or 152; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted. [Old corresponding Section: Sec.163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.)” 7. In view of the above Section, the judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact. Accordingly, the trial Court has asked questions and recorded the evidence. The act of the Judge is in accordance with law and he is not biased. - 10 - CP No. 100148/2025 Absolutely, there are no materials to show that the Judge is biased. The trial Court, in its order dated 04th June 2020, has properly recorded the finding that deponent has made false allegation in his affidavit and accordingly, the same is rightly rejected by the trial Court. The same cannot be found fault with. 8. For the reasons aforestated, absolutely there are no grounds to accept the reasons of the petitioners for transfer of case as sought for. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Petition is dismissed. ii) Registry is directed to send the copy of this Order to the trial Court for reference. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU