- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20294 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA S/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (RTD. BSNL TECHNICIAN), R/A. 4TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN GENERAL STORE, VIJAYANAGARA, DEVANURU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MADALETY S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AND NARASA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6/239, 5TH CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, SIR M.V.EXTENSION, HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 3. SMT. NANDINI D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, W/O T GOPALA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 4. SMT. ROOPA D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, W/O.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. SMT RADHA D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 6. SMT. RUCHITHA D/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 7. KUM. JYOTHI D/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 2, 3 AND 5 TO 7 ARE PRESENTLY R/A C/O T. GOPALA NO. 36, NICHAKUNTE VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 213, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 8. SMT. PUTTAKKA W/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 9. KUM. CHAITHRA D/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 10. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 8 TO 10 PRESENTLY R/A NO.35, NICHAKUNTE VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 213, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 11. SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, W/O. R.N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.414, RAMAPURA VILLAGE, HOSURU HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 210, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 12. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA D/O. LATE UGRANARASA @ UGRANARASAPPA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A.NO.203, ARASAPURA VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 121, TUMKUR DISTRICT. SRI. NARASIMHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 13. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI W/O. LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 14. SRI LAKSHMINARASAPPA S/O. LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/A.NO.3-44, (LATE NARASIMHAPPA'S HOUSE), S.C.COLONY, KODIPALLI VILLAGE, YERRABOMMANAHALLI, MADAKASIRA MANDAL ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT - 515 301 ANDHRA PRADESH. 15. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE NARSIMHAPPA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A 3-213, B.RAYAPU IMUDRAM, KALLUMARRI ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 303 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.09.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R14 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025, NOTICE TO R15 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 ON IA NO. VI IN OS NO. 64/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 04.06.2025 in O.S.No.64/2021 on an application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking summoning of the signatory to Ex.D.30 for the purpose of evidence. 2. Heard Shri Vishwanatha R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri A.G. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is defendant No.10. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff institutes a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which according to the plaintiff is joint family properties. The suit progresses to a large extent and the issue in the present case is not with regard to the merit of the matter. In the said suit, applications are filed by the petitioner seeking reference of the thumb impression found in Ex.D.30 to an expert and summoning of the signatory to Ex.D.30. The petitioner files an application - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 seeking issuance of summons to the witness, who is said to be custodian of pension records of PW1, who denies his signature while accepting the thumb impression. The concerned court rejects the application by the following order. "5. On the basis of rival contention of plaintiff and defendants, the following points arise for consideration; 1. Whether the defendants 7 to 12 made out ground to summon the documents from Assistant Treasury Sub Treasury, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District in order to determine the fact in issue between the parties? 2. What order? 6. My answer to the above points is: Point No. 1 : In the negative. point No.2 : As per the final order. for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1: Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession. After completion of plaintiff evidence, Defendant No.10 adduced evidence as DW-1. Thereafter, DW-1 took time to produce documents. Then they filed present application by taking contention that already division among the plaintiff and defendants through Parikath dtd.18-10-1979. Plaintiff denied the alleged Parikath and signature found on Parikath. During the course of cross examination PW-1 denied the signature found on alleged Ex.D-30. 8. A perusal of pleadings along with the issues between the parties it is very clear that the Ex.D.30 is the un registered document and the prima-facie - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 document show that on the date of alleged execution the parties mentioned in the Ex.D.30 entered into partition. Further, the other revenue records placed by the plaintiff and defendants which reveals that on the basis of pavathi varasu katha mutated in the name of Ugranarasa Ugranarasappa and still katha not mutated according to Ex.D.30. The scope of partition is only nature of the property admissibility of the Ex.D-30. Hence, summoning the witness by directing to produce the documents is not necessary to determine the fact in issue between the parties. Hence, the application filed by the defendants is devoid of merits. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. 9. Point No.2: In view of the above discussion, Point No. 1, 1 proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA.No.VI filed by the defendants 7 to 12 Under Order XVI Rule 1 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC is hereby rejected." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the production of the records or the witness summons to depose with regard to the pension papers of PW1, would become imperative, as he denies his signature found in Ex.D.30, while accepting the thumb impression of two other persons. Therefore, the said witness was necessary to be called for evidence. 5. The submission of the learned counsel by the petitioner is sans acceptance, as that would not turn on any of the plea that is put up by the petitioner. The concerned court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37102 WP No. 20294 of 2025 has not erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by the aforesaid order, which does not indicate any perversity or failure of justice that would entail entertainment of the subject petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A petition thus stands rejected. Interim order, if any, stands dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK