- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32171 W.P. No.21409/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21409/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DOMBAYYA MOOLYA S/O LATE KUNHA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT GANADAKOTYA HOUSE PERAMGRU POST, KEDILA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574219. …PETITIONER (BY MS. POOJA, ADV., FOR MR. HARISH N.K. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. DHARNAMMA W/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 2. SMT. VARIJA D/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. SRI. SHEKHARA S/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 4. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 5. SMT. SUDHA D/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32171 W.P. No.21409/2021 6. SMT. HARINAKSHI D/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7. SMT. NALINI D/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8. SRI. JANARDHANA S/O CHANDU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. R1 TO R8 ARE RESIDING AT GANADAKOTYA HOUSE PERAMOGRU POST, KEDILA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574219. 9. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANTWAL POLICE STATION BANTWAL, B C ROAD, D K DISTRICT REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. …RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R9 MR. THEJESWARA S, ADV., FOR R1 TO R8) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.III IN O.S.NO.151/2019 DATED 14.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PCJ AND JMFC, BANTWAL CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32171 W.P. No.21409/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.151/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Heard Miss Pooja, learned counsel for Sri.Harish N.K., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Thejeswara S., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.9. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the said defendants have filed a detailed written statement contending that the alleged conversion order is forged and fabricated. The defendant No.1 has filed a complaint with the respondent No.9-police contending that the conversion order placed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is forged and concocted. The jurisdictional police, based on such a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32171 W.P. No.21409/2021 complaint, registered the crime as Crime No.95/2019. In the said suit, the respondent No.9 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking prayer to handover the original conversion order and the said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court. 4. It is to be noticed that the defendant No.1 in the suit has filed a complaint with the respondent No.9- police and based on such a complaint, a crime is registered and the Investigation Officer took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he came to know that the conversion order claimed by the defendants is produced by the plaintiff in the suit. Hence, an application was filed for securing the conversion order. The Trial Court, considering the aspect that the Investigation Officer is seeking the original conversion order to secure the FSL report with regard to the genuineness of the same including the signature found on the said conversion order, by a well-reasoned order, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32171 W.P. No.21409/2021 allowed the application by directing the office to hand over the conversion order to the custody of Police Inspector, Bantwal Town Police, by keeping the certified copy of the same in the Registry. I do not find any error or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court calling for interference in the present writ petition. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original conversion order is required to be marked in the evidence. In my considered view, it is open for the plaintiff to produce the certified copy of the conversion order and mark the same. It is needless to observe that marking of the said document would be subject to outcome of the investigation. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38