- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20265 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20254 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 20526 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 20265/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHAIK AMEER PASHA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI SHAIK FAROOK S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. SRI SHAIK TAJMUL S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI SHAIK ALTAF S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SRI SHAIK ABDULLA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 ALL ARE R/AT BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE BETHMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M.GOPAL @ RAJGOPAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. SHIVAGAMI W/O LATE M.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SMT.SHANTHI W/O LATE DHANASHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE N.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 1ST CROSS HANUMANTHANAGARA KYASAMBALLI ROAD BETHAMANGALA TOWN BETHAMANGALA, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUJAYEENDRA S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF IN OS NO. 104/2017 ON - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 IA NO. 25 VIDE ANNX-A AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITONER. IN WP NO. 20254/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHAIK AMEER PASHA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI SHAIK FAROOK S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. SRI SHAIK TAJMUL S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI SHAIK ALTAF S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SRI SHAIK ABDULLA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE BETHMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 AND: SRI M.GOPAL @ RAJGOPAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. SHIVAGAMI W/O LATE M.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SMT.SHANTHI W/O LATE DHANASHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE N.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 1ST CROSS HANUMANTHANAGARA KYASAMBALLI ROAD BETHAMANGALA TOWN BETHAMANGALA, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUJAYEENDRA S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF IN OS NO. 104/2017 ON IA NO. 21,23 AND 24 VIDE ANNX-A AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITONER. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 IN WP NO. 20526/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHAIK AMEER PASHA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI SHAIK FAROOK S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. SRI SHAIK TAJMUL S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI SHAIK ALTAF S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SRI SHAIK ABDULLA S/O LATE SHAIK KHASIM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE BETHMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. GOPAL @ RAJGOPAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 1. SMT. SHIVAGAMI W/O LATE M.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SMT.SHANTHI W/O LATE DHANASHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE N.GOPAL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 1ST CROSS HANUMANTHANAGARA KYASAMBALLI ROAD BETHAMANGALA TOWN BETHAMANGALA, K.G.F.TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUJAYEENDRA S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF IN OS NO. 104/2017 ON IA NO. 22 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, dated 11.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.104/2017 rejecting I.A.No.25 seeking production of a mother deed executed by one Kuppamma in favour of defendant No.1 on 21.04.1998. 2. Heard Sri.Nataraj D, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Sujayeendra S, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property on the strength of it being their ancestral property. The petitioners institute a suit in O.S.No.104/2017 on the score that defendant No.1 began to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit comes to be filed seeking - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 injunction against the defendants. The suit progressed to a large extent. The plaintiffs then led evidence as PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 and marked several documents, cross-examined the defendants and defendants also led their evidence as DWs.1 and 2 and marked several documents. Long after the cross- examination, an application is filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.25 seeking production of document of the year 1998, the document which was a deed executed by Kuppamma in favour of defendant No.1 to verify the signatures. The concerned Court by the order dated 11.06.2025 rejects the application by the following order: "ORDER ON I.A.No.25 The present application was filed by the plaintiff No.5 under Section 151 of CPC as IA No.25 seeking direction to the defendants to produce Mother Deed executed by Kupamma in favour defendant No.1 dated 21.04.1998, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In the affidavits filed in support of said application, the plaintiff No.5 has stated that they have filed the present suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction with respect of the suit-schedule property. Further stated that the defendants disputed the possession of plaintiffs over the suit-schedule property, which is water tank being used by the plaintiffs for the agricultural purpose. Further stated that Smt. Kupamma by receiving the sale consideration amount from the father of plaintiffs has executed Sale Agreement and put - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 the father of plaintiffs in possession of suit-schedule property. Now intentionally the said Smt. Kupamma denying the Agreement of Sale and in this regard the plaintiffs relied upon the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Bethamangala dated 03.07.1998, wherein the said Smt. Kupamma has admitted the execution of said Sale Agreement in favour of their father. In order to establish the sale Agreement signatures, the production of Mother Deed executed by Smt. Kupamma in favour of defendant No.1 is very much required, which is in the custody of defendant No.1. Now the defendant No.1 has demised and his LRs came on record and they are in possession of said Sale Deed dated 21.04.1998. Hence prays to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the counsel for defendant No.1 has filed objection wherein he has denied the averments of application by contending that it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that already he has produced the said Sale Deed dated 21.04.1998 as per Ex.D1, hence issuance of further direction is not required and prays to reject the present application. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the documents on 5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff No.5 has made out grounds to allow the application filed under Sec.151 of CPC as IA.No.25 by giving direction to the Lrs of defendant No.1 to produce Mother Deed dated 21.04.1998 at this stage as prayed for? 2) What order? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 6. My findings on the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S 7. POINT No.1:- Having heard and on perusal of the record it reveals that, earlier the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and later they have converted the suit as permanent injunction with respect of suit-schedule property. Accordingly issues were modified and additional Issue was framed and when the matter was stood for arguments, the present application came to be filed by the plaintiff No.5 which was opposed by the defendant No.1. 8. Before going into the merit of the application it is appropriate to glance the brief history of the present case. The record shows that after the registering the present case interim order granted in favour of plaintiffs and issued suit summons to defendant No.1 and 2. Meantime the defendant No.1 has appeared through his advocate and filed written-statement. Further the defendant No.2 failed to appear after the service of suit summons, hence defendant No.2 placed as exparte. Later the defendant No.1 filed his written-statement and accordingly issues framed and trial was commenced. Further the defendant No.1 also lead his side of evidence and that on 20.11.2023 itself the matter posted for arguments. Meantime PW1 again recalled for further chief-examination and PW2 to 5 were examined on behalf of plaintiffs and that on 19.10.2024 after the completion of evidences again the matter posted for arguments. Further the plaintiff No.5 filed applications which came to be allowed on 04.03.2025 and PW3 further examined in chief and at last that on 04.04.2025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 the matter again posted for arguments. Meantime the present application along with IA.No.21 to 24 were filed. 9. The present IA.25 filed by the plaintiff No.5 under Sec. 151 of CPC which deals about saving of inherent powers of the Court which reads as follows: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court". The above said section clearly shows the discretionary power of the Court to pass appropriate order in the interest of justice if 'there is no provision in the CPC. 10. In the application the plaintiff No.5 stated that the production of Mother Deed dated 21.04.1998 is very much required to verify the signatures by comparing the same to sale Agreement. Per contra the contention of the defendant No.1 that already he has produced the said Sale Deed dated 21.04.1998 as per Ex.D1. On this background I have perused the record. Admittedly the evidence of both the parties were completed and the DW1 during his examination has produced the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 20.04.1998 as per Ex.D1 which shows that Smt.Kupamma has sold Sy.No.27/5B measuring 2 Acre 20 guntas in favour of defendant No.1 for a sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant No.1 in his written-statement also took the defence of said Sale Deed dated 20.04.1998. It is trite law that certified copies of registered Sale Deed having its own evidentiary value and it is already produced by DW1. Hence giving further direction to produce the original document is not required as the defendants not took any counter-claim over the suit-schedule property. 11. Further it is a suit for mere the relief of permanent injunction wherein the plaintiffs have to prove their possession over the suit-schedule property bearing Sy.No.27/5B measuring East 66 feet, West 62 ft, North 51 ft and South 24 ft. and also need to prove the interference of the defendants as alleged by them. Hence giving direction to the Lrs of defendant No.l to produce - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 Mother Deed dated 21.04.1998 does not arise and in present nature of suit comparing the signatures of the parties is not relevant. Further Ex.D1 is of the document dated 20.04.1998 and there is no document stated by the defendant No.1 dated 21.04.1998. 12. On considering all these aspects it is clear that the plaintiff No.5 has filed the present application without any prima-facie grounds. Further instead of proceeding with the matter, the plaintiffs keep on filing the applications which is not acceptable one. Moreover DW1 has already produced the certified copies of said Sale Deed dated 21.04.1998 which appears to be sufficient to proceed further. Hence the present application is devoid of merits. In view of my discussions above, I am of the opinion that IA No.25 appears to be filed to drag on the proceedings. Hence it has to be rejected with heavy costs. With these observations, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative. 13. Point No.2: Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; -:: O R D E R ::- I.A No.25 filed by the plaintiff No.5 U/Sec.151 of CPC is hereby rejected with the cost of Rs.500/-." 4. The concerned Court holds that the application is preferred without divulging on what grounds it is wanting to get the mother deed at the fag end of the proceedings and holds that the suit is only for the relief of permanent injunction and the plaintiffs had to prove their possession over the suit schedule property and also prove that the defendants are interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32564 WP No. 20265 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20254 of 2025 WP No. 20526 of 2025 document sought for production of mother deed in a suit for injunction, does not arise. 5. The aforequoted order of the concerned Court does not in any way depict error apparent or causing failure of justice for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the order does not indicate any perversity. Finding no merit in the petitions, the petitions stand rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98 CT:SS