- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.102342 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.102272 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) IN WP NO.102342/2022 BETWEEN: HANAMANT S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG, AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI-587315, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUTTAWWA W/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI-591235, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. YAMANAWWA D/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. YALLAWWA @ YAMANAWWA D/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. ASHAKKA W/O. SHRISHAIL MANG, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. GANGAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA MANG, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI-587315, TQ JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.11/2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, ON I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 13 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS IN I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 13 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND L AND ETC.,. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 IN WP NO.102272/2022 BETWEEN: HANAMANT S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG, AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI-587315, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUTTAWWA W/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. YAMANAWWA D/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. YALLAWWA @ YAMANAWWA D/O. NEELAPPA MANG, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. ASHAKKA W/O. SHRISHAIL MANG, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLABHAVI, NOW AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 5. GANGAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA MANG, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O . GOLABHAVI-587315, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO.10/2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, ON I.A. NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND I.A. NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 13 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN I.A. NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10 (A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AND I.A. NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 13 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND L RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The present writ petitions are filed aggrieved by orders passed in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 in Civil Misc. Nos.10 and 11 of 2016 dated 16.02.2022, the defendant who was set ex-parte and an ex-parte judgment and decree in O.S.No.31/2007 was passed and the FDP No.10/2011 was closed. 2. Two applications, both numbered as I.A.No.5 in C.Misc.No.10/2016 and C.Misc.No.11/2016, were filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC to appoint Expert Court Commissioner to compare the left thumb impression of the petitioner appearing in his petition and his vakkalath and specimen left thumb impression appearing on the third page of the summons alleged to have been served on the petitioner on 15.02.2007 in O.S.No.31/2007 and the summons alleged to have been served on 29.03.2011 in FDP No.10/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. Two applications, both numbered as I.A.No.6 in C.Misc.No.10/2016 and C.Misc.No.11/2016, were filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC to call for the duplicate copy of the summons issued on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 03.02.2007 in O.S.No.31/2007 and the summons issued on 23.02.2011 in FDP No.10/2011. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no summons were served on him either in suit or in FDP proceedings, but the process server filed a report stating that he has personally served notice on the petitioner. As per the same, the petitioner was placed ex-parte and an ex-parte final decree order was passed against him. In order to prove service of notice, it is necessary to appoint a Court Commissioner and also to call for the original copies of the summons, which were served on the petitioner. The respondents have filed their objections. 4. The Trial Court, by orders impugned, observed that the respondents have filed the alleged notice, which was duly served on the petitioner. But the petitioner, without applying for certified copy of the notice in FDP No.10/2011, filed I.A.No.6 and he has not exhausted the remedy available to him at the initial stage. Further, it is also clear that as per the said judgment, the respondents are in possession of the suit land. However, at this stage, it is not necessary to discuss the merits - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 of the case of the petitioner and respondents. To decide these applications, the conduct of the petitioner is very much relevant. The Trial Court felt that the petitioner has not shown due diligence and after two years of the judgment passed in FDP No.10/2011, he filed these petitions. The Trial court felt that there are no sufficient materials and accordingly dismissed both the applications in both the matters. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither in FDP proceedings nor in original suit, the petitioner was served with any notices and ex-parte orders were passed and as such, he filed two separate miscellaneous petitions for restoration of the original suit and final decree proceedings. It is submitted that if the signature/thumb impression on suit summons that are served are compared with the signature/thumb impression in the present applications, the true facts will come into light. The Trial Court, on the ground that the petitioner could have obtained the original notices by way of an application before the Trial Court and on hyper- technical reasons, dismissed the applications. It is submitted that once the same is decided by the Court, everything will - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 come to light and the mischief played by a process server will come to light. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is a suit of the year 2007, which was decreed in the year 2009. In fact, the petitioner had sold part of the properties and the purchaser had contested the matter. All these aspects were in the notice of the petitioner and only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, by way of these applications the petitioner has come before this Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the petitioner throughout was not diligent in prosecuting the matter and if applications of this nature are entertained, there will be no end to the litigation and it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The suit filed by the respondent herein was decreed. The final decree proceedings are concluded. In both the proceedings, the petitioner before this Court was placed ex- parte and an ex-parte order was passed. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that neither in suit nor in FDP - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 proceedings, the petitioner was served. He filed a miscellaneous petition to restore the suit and the FDP proceedings. The dispute with regard to service of notice, by sending the signature/thumb impression for expert opinion, as sought for by the petitioner, would resolve the dispute between the parties. Through expert opinion, once the report is received, if it reveals that the signature or the thumb impression is of the petitioner and he is unnecessarily litigating the matter, the Court shall initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for misrepresenting the Court. In view of the same, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The orders on I.A.No.5 and 6 passed in Civil.Misc. No.10/2016 and Civil Misc.No.11/2016 dated 16.02.2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatati, are set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1897 WP No. 102342 of 2022 C/W WP No. 102272 of 2022 (ii) The applications filed by the petitioner i.e., I.A.No.5 and 6 in Civil.Misc.No.10/2016 and Civil Misc.No.11/2016 are allowed. (iii) If the expert opinion reveals that the signatures/thumb impressions are of the petitioner, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner. (iv) Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed off. (v) All I.As., in these writ petitions, stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR, YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62