- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106775 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. TARAMATI W/O. CHANDU VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIKURALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRIYANAKA W/O. RAMESH BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADHABHAVI-591232, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. YUVARAJ S/O. PRABHAKAR SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERICE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. APPA S/O. GOPAL VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 4. LAXMAN S/O. SADASHIV VANAMORE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED IN MISC.NO.283/2025 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI. PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND B) FURTHER ALLOW THE MISC.NO.283/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND WITHDRAW THE SUIT, O.S.NO.53/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKODI AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NIPPANI/RAIBAG TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Set-aside the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in misc.no.283/2025 by the Prl. District and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 Sessions Judge, Belagavi produced at Annexure- A, and b. Further allow the Misc.No.283/2025 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. and withdraw the suit, O.S.No.53/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge Nippani/Raibag to meet the ends of justice. c. Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are; 3.1. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.53/2013 seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is defendant No.3, having evaded service, finally filed his written statement in the year 2024. 3.2. The application dated 27.01.2024 is filed to take the written statement on record. The said application came to be allowed on 07.02.2024. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross- examination of PW1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 3.3. When the learned counsel for defendant No.3 sought to question the said witness as regards an earlier suit in O.S.No.26/2002, PW1 having indicated that he has no knowledge of the said suit, it appears that the counsel for defendant No.3 persisted with asking questions with cross- examination on the said suit, which came to be disallowed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi. 3.4. In that background, a petition under Section 24 of the CPC came to be filed by the petitioner before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Belagavi, in Miscellaneous Petition No.283/2025, alleging that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi is biased against the petitioner and has restrained the counsel appearing for the petitioner to put specific questions to PW1 and therefore, it affects the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that the said Court has not properly taken or recorded the evidence of PW1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 when the petitioner's counsel cross-examined PW1 on 04.04.2025 and the deposition recorded on the said date is unmeaningful and the deposition comes in the way of disposal of the matter as it destroys the defence of the petitioner. 3.5. It is further alleged that the learned Senior Civil Judge is not allowing the counsel appearing for the petitioner to ask about the previous litigation, which suspected the parties to think otherwise and that he may not get proper justice at the hands of the said Court, as also that the said Court was not granting sufficient time for cross-examination of PW1. 3.6. The said application came to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order dated 28.07.2025. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 4. Sri. Rajshekhar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates the above submission which was made before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and as contained in the petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Heard Sri.Rajshekhar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the papers. 6. I have gone through the cross-examination recorded on 04.04.2025. The very first line indicates that PW1 has categorically stated that he is not aware of O.S.No.26/2002 and/or anything relating thereto. Once the witness has categorically made a statement that he does not know anything about O.S.No.26/2002, the question of continuing to ask the said witness about O.S.No.26/2002, would not arise. 7. The grounds which have been alleged in the application under Section 24 of CPC, in my considered opinion, are so urged only to browbeat the Senior Civil - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 Judge and for no other purpose. The petitioner, who has not been diligent in the matter, having filed written statement after nearly 11 years, which written statement has been taken on record, knowing fully well about the facts of the matter, it was but required for the petitioner to cross-examine PW1. Having had such a long time to prepare for such cross- examination, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity has not been granted by the Court. 8. A reading of the cross-examination recorded on 04.04.2025 indicates that the said recordal is proper, cogent and meaningful. Hence the very allegation made by the petitioner that the recordal of evidence is unmeaningful and/or destroys the case of the petitioner, does not stand to reason inasmuch as, firstly the deposition recorded is meaningful, secondly, insofar as it destroying the case of the petitioner, that is on the basis of the cross-examination conducted by the counsel, if the witness has answered unfavourably - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11998 WP No. 106775 of 2025 to the petitioner, it does not mean that the recordal is bad and/or that the Senior Civil Judge is biased towards the petitioner defendant No.3. 9. As indicated supra, the application filed under Section 24 of the CPC is an abuse of the process of court. It has been made to browbeat the Senior Civil Judge and such a practice cannot be encouraged by this Court. 10. In that view of the matter, no ground being made out, the petition stands dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26