- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 102313 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUVARNA W/O. GURUSIDDAPPA KATAGERI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEELGUND, TQ: BADAMI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ISHWARAPPA S/O. GURUBASAPPA @ GURAPPA ADAKI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, R/O: KERUR, TALUK: BADAMI – 587 101. DIST: BAGALKOTE. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O. GURUBASAPPA @ GURAPPA ADAKI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: TRADING, R/O: KERUR, TALUK: BADAMI – 587 101. DIST: BAGALKOTE. 3. YAMNOOR SAB S/O. HAAJISAB NADAF, AGE: 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NARENOOR, TALUK: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. 4. LINGARAJ S/O. HUCHCHAPPA KONNUR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: HOSPET, KERUR, TALUK: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. 5. DEVENDRAGOUDA S/O. VITTALA GOUDAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: TRADE, R/O: HOSAPETE, KERUR, TALUK, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE ISSUED TO R2 TO R5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.06.2022 IN O.S.216/2010 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BADAMI WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. NO. 16 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) 1. Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No.16 filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S. No.216 of 2010 by the Prl. Civil judge and JMFC, Badami, defendant No.1 therein has preferred this writ petition. 2. O.S. No.216 of 2010 is a suit for declaration and partition. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff / respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC with the following prayer: “EzÀgÀ°è CfðzÁgÀ/ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ «£ÀAw¥ÀǪÀðPÀ Cfð J£ÉAzÀgÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À ªÉÄðAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ/¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA-1 EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17/11/2009 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃlj, ¨ÁzÁ«Ä EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ C¥À¸Ávï ªÁnߥÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. EzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄzÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ vÀÄA¨Á CªÀ±Àå EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 3. Based on the cross-examination of DW1, which reads as under, the trial court has passed the impugned order. 4. Cross-examination of DW1 reads as under: “ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä: ²æà n.Dgï.PÉ ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîjAzÀ ¤r.9 ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄÈvÀÄå ¥ÀvÀæ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ, ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢-2 gÁfà - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 DVzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è gÁfÃAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ, ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢-2 D¹Û ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ C¥Áìvï ªÁnß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è. ¸ÀzÀj C¥Áìvï ªÁnß ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §zÁ«ÄAiÀÄ ²æà J£ï.©.ºÉƸÀªÀÄ£É ªÀQîgÀ §½ £ÉÆÃlj ªÀiÁr¹zÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ C¥Áìvï ªÁnß ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.11.2009 gÀ eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ gÀÄdÄ £À£ÀßzÀÄ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀÅlzÀ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ£Àß gÀÄdĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄÄ eÉgÁPÀì ¥ÀæwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ vÉUÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄAqÀ£ÉUÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.” 5. The impugned order reads as under: “Order on IA No.16. The counsel for the plaintiff filed the application U/o 11 Rule 14 of CPC seeking the direction to the defendant No.1 to produced the partition deed dated 17.11.2009. It is stated in the affidavit that the partition deed is in the possession of the defendant No.1 and said fact has been raised during the course of cross-examination and therefore the examination of the said document is necessary. Therefore the present application has been filed. The counsel for the defendant no.1 file objection wherein it is contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and also for cancellation will deed. Further it is contended the case of the plaintiff is that there was no partition among the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff has not pleaded about the partition deed dated 17.11.2009. Further the said document has been created by the plaintiff and there is no such document is in existence therefore prayed for rejection of the application. Heard both the counsels and perused the reasons stated in the application and objection. On perusal of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 records it appears that during the cross-examination of DW.1 she has admitted the xerox copy of partition deed as stated above but how the said document is relevant to the present case has been not stated by the plaintiff in the application. And further the plaintiff has not pleaded the above said fact in the plaint and the said document is against the contention taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. Over all considering the facts, circumstances the court is of the considered opinion that in order to know the real contravercy between the parties and also to decide the case conclusively the application needs to be considered. Hence the following order: ORDER The IA No.16 filed by the plaintiff U/o 11 Rule 14 of CPC is hereby allowed. The defendant No.1 is directed to produced the partition deed dated 17.11.2009 on next of hearing. Hence for further cross-examination of DW.1 Call on 14-06-2022.” 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The case of the petitioner is that, he is not in the possession of the documents ordered to be produced by him. It is submitted that in the cross-examination, he merely agreed to his signature, which was part of a photocopy of a document. It is submitted that as the document is not in his possession to produce the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:864 WP No. 102313 of 2022 8. Though, respondent No.1 / plaintiff justifies the impugned order, he candidly admits that the document concerned may not be in the possession of the petitioner herein. 9. The circumstances reveal that the document alleged may not be in possession of the petitioner herein. Hence, the question of him producing the same before the trial Court does not arise. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.06.2022, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A. No.16 filed by respondent No.1 / plaintiff under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S. No.216 of 2010 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7