SMT. A. SANJEEVAMMA v. SRI. MUNIYAPPA

2. SRI. ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,

3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA, D/O. LATE. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

6. SRI. SATHISH S/O. LATE. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, (BY SRI. SURENDRA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28994 WP No. 14794 of 2026 HC-KAR AND:

1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O. LATE. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

2. SMT. MUNIANJANAPPA S/O. LATE. KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

3. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE. KLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

4. SRI. RAJANNA S/O. LATE. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

5. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

6. SRI. THIMAPPA S/O. LATE. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.V., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER DIRECTION THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED AN BY III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT DEVANAHALLI IN IA.NO.XXV IN - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28994 WP No. 14794 of 2026 HC-KAR O.S.NO.145/2010 DATED.08-04-2026. PRODUCED ANNEXURE- E. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XXV O.S.No.145/2010 dated 08.04.2026 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, the petitioners who are the legal representatives of plaintiffs are before this Court.

2. The facts of the case are that the original plaintiff Hanumappa and the 2nd plaintiff Muniyappa had filed a suit in O.S.No.145/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli, seeking declaration. The defendants had filed the written statement. On 27.03.2026, the petitioners filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to summon original parikath dated

25.02.1971 produced in O.S.No.752/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli. By order impugned, the said application i.e., I.A.No.XXV filed by the petitioners was dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28994 WP No. 14794 of 2026 HC-KAR

3. While dismissing I.A.No.XXV, the trial Court had observed that the present suit is filed for partition and separate possession and in the present case, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants have already been examined. When the matter is set down for arguments, the present application is filed. It is prayed in the application to summon the panchayath parikath dated 25.02.1971 from the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.752/2016. It is observed that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has issued circular that the record which is of some other Court cannot be summoned by the different Court. The parties are at liberty to file necessary application before the competent Court and get it returned and produce the same before the Court in which they wanted to produce the document. It is an admitted fact that in the said suit, the parties have not led the evidence. The LR’s of plaintiff No.1 are always at liberty to file necessary application in O.S.No.752/2016 to return the original document. Without doing so, filing application and seeking to summon the said document which is on the record of O.S.No.752/2016 is not permissible. Hence, the application is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the application. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28994 WP No. 14794 of 2026 HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that some of the properties are granted in the name of the individual coparceners while they are in joint possession. The said properties are also joint family properties. In spite of the fact, the LRs of Kalappa have filed a suit as if it is a self acquired property of Kalappa which is totally unknown to law. Unless the said document is placed before the Court, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioners. It is submitted that the process as contemplated by the trial Court is a tedious process. Instead of that, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application considering the circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka and in the teeth of the same, it is not permissible. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner wants the Court to summon the original panchayath parikath dated 25.02.1971 which is produced in O.S.No.752/2016 on the file of the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28994 WP No. 14794 of 2026 HC-KAR Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. The trial Court had dismissed the application observing that the High Court of Karnataka has issued circular that the record which is of some other Court cannot be summoned by the different Court and the parties are always at liberty to file necessary application before the competent Court and get returned the said document and produce before the Court in which they want to produce the document and the trial Court had rightly held that the petitioners can make an appropriate application to return the original document. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with a circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka and this Court finds no reason 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/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8