- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9897 WP No. 101906 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101906 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA @ SIDRAM S/O. SIDARAI GURAVANNAVAR, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. C/O. MALHARPANT KULKARNI, IN THE FARM HOUSE AT JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SMT. TARABAI W/O. RAMACHANDRA @ SIDRAM GURAVANNAVAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. C/O. MALHARPANT KULKARNI, IN THE FARM HOUSE AT JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591223. 2. SHRI MALLIKARUN S/O. RAMACHANDRA @ SIDRAM GURAVANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. C/O. MALHARPANT KULKARNI, IN THE FARM HOUSE AT JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591223. 3. GEETA D/O. RAMACHANDRA @ SIDRAM GURAVANNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. MALHARPANT KULKARNI, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9897 WP No. 101906 of 2025 IN THE FARM HOUSE AT JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591223. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SUSHILA D/O. SADASHIV BAJANTRI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. H.H. WORK AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIREKODI, TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591247. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO; A) WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DT. 04/12/2024 ON I.A. NO. 14 WHICH FILED U/O. 13 RULE 10 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/DEFENDANT NO.2(A) TO 2(C) IN O.S. NO. 428/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI, AT. CHIKODI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW I.A. NO. 14 WHICH FILED U/O. 13 RULE 10 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC VIDE ANENXURE-C AND FURTHER QUASH ORDER DT. 04/12/2024 ON I.A. NO. 15 WHICH FILED U/O. 26 RULE 10(A) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/DEFENDANT NO.2(A) TO 2(C) IN O.S. NO. 428/2013 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI, AT. CHIKODI VIDE ANNEXURE-G ALLOW I.A. NO. 15 WHICH FILED U/O. 26 RULE 10(A) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E. B) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR ORDERS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9897 WP No. 101906 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A) Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash order dt. 04/12/2024 on I.A. No. 14 which filed u/O. 13 Rule 10 R/W Sec. 151 of CPC filed by the petitioners herein/Defendant No.2(a) to 2(c) in O.S. No. 428/2013 passed by the Court of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, at. Chikodi vide Annexure-G and allow I.A. No. 14 which filed u/O. 13 Rule 10 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC vide Annexure-C and further quash Order dt. 04/12/2024 on I.A. No. 15 which filed u/O. 26 Rule 10(A) R/w Sec. 151 of CPC filed by the petitioners herein/Defendant No.2(a) to 2(c) in O.S. No. 428/2013 on the file of Court of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, at. Chikodi vide Annexure-G allow I.A. No. 15 which filed u/O. 26 rule 10(A) R/w Sec. 151 of CPC vide Annexure-E. B) Pass any such order or orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. A suit in O.S. No.428 of 2013 had been filed before the I Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, seeking a declaration of title on the basis of the Will dated 17.12.2012. The petitioners, who were defendant Nos.1/2A, 2B, and 2C had filed two applications, one under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for production and summoning of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9897 WP No. 101906 of 2025 certain documents, and another under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to refer the documents summoned and the Will to a handwriting expert, to ascertain if the signatures on both the documents are filed by the same person. The said applications having been rejected, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The submission of Sri. Ganapathi M. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the signatures on the Will are not of the claimed executant. It is a forgery, and it is for this purpose that the documents in the earlier suit in O.S.No.113/2008, which had the admitted signatures of the executant on the Will, were sought to be summoned and those documents could be referred to a handwriting expert. As such, he submits that, for rendering effective justice and effective finding, those documents are to be called for and referred to a handwriting expert. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9897 WP No. 101906 of 2025 4. The petitioners are the defendants in the said suit. The Will has been set up by the plaintiff. It is, therefore, required for the plaintiff to establish the Will in a manner known to law. It is only thereafter that the defendants could seek to lead evidence to impeach the evidence led by the plaintiff. The burden of proof being on the plaintiff, the defendants cannot seek to file an application for summoning the documents to disprove the Will, which is required to be proven by the plaintiff. Hence, the reasoning of the Trial Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners being proper and correct, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 5. The petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9