The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of challenging trial court decisions through appropriate legal procedures and addressing allegations of misconduct and irregularities in a manner consistent with the administration of justice.

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. In these writ petitions, following reliefs are sought for:-

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Court below; 'to Summon the "Original purchase deed" from "The Manager; Kundapura Vyavasaya Sahakara Sangha Niyamita; Kundapura" for "Marking" the same as exhibit.

2. Direct the Court below, to refrain from any "Misconduct" hereafter; and to conduct the case judiciously and expeditiously; by strictly following legal procedures at all times.

3. Direct the District and Sessions Judge at Udupi; to issue "Certified copy" of documents that are pertaining to the previous suit; which was filed by the respondent; against the petitioner vide O.S. No. 62 of 2005."

Heard Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person and Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

2. Respondent herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the file of Civil Judge, Kundapura, which was numbered as O.S. No. 290 of 2012. Subsequently, same is said to have been transferred to III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi and as such, it has been renumbered as O.S. No. 160 of 2014. On service of suit summons, defendant 1-writ petitioner is said to have appeared, filed his written statement and contested the suit. On the basis of pleadings of parties, issues have been framed and matter is at the stage of trial. He is alleging the procedure adopted by Trial Court in conducting the proceedings is against procedural law and as such has sought for the reliefs noted hereinabove.

3. The grievance of writ petitioner is that respondent is illegally laying a claim for 24 cents land in Sy. No. 28/7 of Voderhobli, Kundapura TMC (hereinafter referred to as "suit schedule property") based on a fabricated document and the purported purchase deed dated 13-5-1965 is shrouded with mystery and it is a fabricated and concocted document. It is also contended that field map relating to Sy. No. 28 produced by respondent/plaintiff is fabricated and no reasons have been assigned by plaintiff for non-production of original purchase deed. It is further contended by Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person that he had complained to the Revenue Authorities, who admitted their mistakes and thereafter to cover up their mistakes and lapses, documents have been subsequently fabricated and these aspects have not been taken note of by the Trial Court.

4. He would submit that intermittently respondent/plaintiff filed the documents before the Court along with memo and same were not accompanied by an application and these haying been highlighted by writ petitioner/defendant had resulted in Trial Court directing respondent/plaintiff to file an application to take the documents on record and as such, at the instance of Court respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. VII, dated 30-11-2013, Annexure-S and Trial Court without affording any opportunity to the petitioner or calling upon the writ petitioner to file objections, proceeded to record as though defendant was absent on the date of hearing and allowed said application by order dated 30-11-2013. It is also contended that fake documents have been marked despite objections being raised by writ petitioner/defendant and despite interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. VIII, dated 20-1-2014 being filed by petitioner-first defendant for summoning original purchase deed from Bank, Annexure-U, same has been erroneously rejected by order dated 20-1-2014 and only on complaint being made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 15-2-2014 citing the anomaly and impropriety during the course of conducting trial as per complaint dated 15-2-2014, Annexure-W. Matter came to be transferred from Kundapura Court to Udupi Court and even thereafter the transferee Court has also been acting contrary to procedural law and as such, he has sought for reliefs as noted hereinabove.

5. Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel appearing for sole respondent would submit that there is no error committed by the Cour