- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 103327 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TEJASWINI KOM. CHANNABASAVARAJ SUNKAD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BYADAGI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI, NOW RESIDING AT KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL. PIN-583231. 2. SMT. MAHALAXMI KOM. VIJAY MARANABASARI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BYADAGI, TALUK. BYADAGI, DIST. BYADAGI, NOW AT GADAG, DIST. GADAG. PIN-582101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL AND SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. MAHANTAPPA S/O. SHADAKSHARAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI, TAL. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN. 581106. 2. SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. PANCHAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI, TAL. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN. 581106. 3. SMT. MUKTANGINI KOM SIDDALINGAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BYADAGI, TAL. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN-581106. 4. SRI. P. PAMPAPATEPPA S/O. LINGARAJ PALLED, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 R/O. KUKATENI, TQ. TALUK, DIST. BALLARY, PIN-583101. 5. MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, BYADGI BRANCH, BANASHANKARI ROAD, BYADAGI, AT. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN-581106. 6. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH BYADAGI, AT. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN 581106. 7. MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, P. B. ROAD, BYADAGI, AT. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI-581106. 8. BASNNA B. BELAVADI, AGE: 57 EYARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, HAVERI, TALUK. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN 581106. 9. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. MAHANTAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN. 581106 10. SRI. CHETAN S/O. MAHANTAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN. 581106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADV. FOR R5; SRI. S. N. KINI, ADV. FOR R8; SRI. P. S. ANTAKKANAVAR, ADV. FOR R9 AND R10; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4, R6 AND R7 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/08/2021 ON I.A.NO.25 IN OS.NO.5/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BYADAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.25 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: “1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12/08/2021 on I.A. No.25 in OS No.5/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Byadagi vide Annexure-G and to allow the I.A. No.25 filed by the petitioners by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. 2. To issue any other order, directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Anand D.Bagewadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking direction to the defendant No.6/Manager of State Bank of India, Byadagi Main Branch to be present for cross-examination by the plaintiffs and the same came to be rejected by the trial Court by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 erroneous finding. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had borrowed certain amount from the bank and respondent No.1/father of the plaintiffs stood guarantor to the said loan and due to default, the joint family property was sold. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed an application for summoning all the documents from the bank which came to be allowed by the trial Court and based on the said documents, the petitioners are required to cross-examine the manager and denying such opportunity would lead to injustice to the plaintiffs. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Lingesh V.Kattemane, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri.S.N.Kini, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 support the impugned order of the trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 6. The petitioners have filed OS No.5/2014 for relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to defendant No.6/Manager of State Bank of India, Byadagi Main Brach to be present for cross-examination by the plaintiffs. The said prayer was rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. The contention of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 had borrowed certain amount from State Bank of India, Byadagi Main Branch and the father of the petitioners stood as surety for the said loan and due to default in paying the loan amount, the bank auctioned the property in favour of respondent No.8 and the petitioners being the co-parceners of the family, have a right over the same, hence, it is necessary to cross-examine the Manager of the bank with regard to the manner of conducting the auction and obtaining of loan. However, the trial Court rejected the same. The contention of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the trial Court merely on the ground that respondent No.6 has not filed any written statement nor tendered any evidence before the Court. In the absence of tendering the evidence by the present Manager, the question of cross-examining him would not arise. Hence, I do not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11849 WP No. 103327 of 2021 find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court under the impugned order calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10