- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:689 WP No. 103070 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.103070 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. ANIL SUNDAR PRABHU, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BHATRAHITLU, MURDESHWAR, MAVALLI-2 VILLAGE, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581350. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, MURDESHWAR BHATKAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY IT’S PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, BHATKAL TALUK-581350. 2. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYAT MAVALLI-2, BHATKAL TALUK-581350. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 IN O.S.NO.70/2022, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL, ORDER ON I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER XVI RULE 1 AND 6 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER XVI RULE 1 AND 6 OF CPC., DATED 16.11.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:689 WP No. 103070 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.III in O.S.No.70/2022 dated 13.02.2025 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner before this Court who is the plaintiff in the suit, is a tenant in the suit schedule property and when the defendant wanted to evict the plaintiff, he had filed a suit for permanent injunction. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is a tenant and lease deed was executed. I.A.No.III is filed by the plaintiff to summon defendant No.2 and to summon the documents i.e., Original Lease Deed dated 03.07.2020 and lease agreement dated 01.09.2021. 3. The trial Court by order impugned had rejected the application. While rejecting the application, the trial Court had observed that in the present case, the plaintiff wants to summon the defendants to produce the original rent agreement and other documents relating to assessment register and documents - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:689 WP No. 103070 of 2025 relating to construction of the suit premise. If the plaintiff wants to produce the documents, he would have obtained certified copies of the said documents. In the present case, the defendants have clearly admitted in their written statement regarding the tenancy of the plaintiff in the suit premise. The trial Court had observed that it is well settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. Hence, in the present case, the question of proving the tenancy does not arise. When that is the case, the question of summoning those documents does not arise. The trial Court observed that ordinarily practice of calling the opposite party as witness is unhealthy practice. Accordingly, the trial Court had rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff wants to mark the documents during the course of evidence and for marking the said documents, he has filed this application. The trial Court without considering all these aspects had dismissed the application. It is submitted that if this application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:689 WP No. 103070 of 2025 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petitioner wants to summon the defendant and also summon the documents. The plaintiff is a tenant and according to him, to establish his case, he requires to mark these documents. The defendant in the written statement has categorically admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit premise. When it is the admitted fact, the question of plaintiff proving the same would not arise and for proving the same, he does not require to summon the defendant as a witness and summon the documents. The trial Court had rightly considered and rejected I.A.No.III and this Court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53