IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 102065 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

BALAPPA S/O SIDARAY SAVALAGI,

AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. TELASANG-591 265, TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

ANNAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA SAVALAGI,

AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. TELASANG-591 265, TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI.

… RESPONDENT

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

C L K A A H X T A M T N I A M D N R A A N S I HEKAR D C L K D

11 A A H i a g : X t T 2 A i e t M T 1 N : a I : 2 l A M 1 D l 0 y N 9 R A 2 s A + N 5 ig S . 0 I 1 n H 5 2 e 3 E . d 1 0

K 6 b A y R T T H H E E C N O AT N U S R T E IT U O T F I O C N E R O T F IO I R N A D R I I A , A N PR D A Y S I E N T G A T S O ID I E S S T U H E E A IM W PU R G IT N E I D N

ORDER PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN O.S. NO.123/2022 ON IA NO.2 U/O XVI RULE 6 OF CPC DATED 20.04.2023 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND ALLOW THE IA NO.2 U/O. XVI RULE 6 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.123/2022 FILED BY PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND

ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.123/2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Athani, For short, ‘Trial Court’

2. The Trial Court rejected I.A. No.II filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein the plaintiff sought to summon the bank details of the defendant/respondent.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit challenging the Sale Deed dated 15.05.2020 on the premise that the sale consideration amount was not paid to the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff’s contention that there is a recital in the Sale Deed that the sale consideration amount has to be paid to the plaintiff through cheque, and said payment is not made.

4. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that the defendant himself admitted that the cheque was not encashed and that the sale consideration was paid in cash after the defendant withdrew the amount from his bank account and paid the same to the plaintiff.

5. It is to be noticed that the defendant has taken a specific stand that the defendant himself has withdrawn the amount from his bank account and paid the same to the plaintiff. If that is the case, then the statement in the bank account should reflect the withdrawal of the said amount by the defendant. To establish the contention that the defendant has not made such a transaction, the plaintiff sought to summon the defendant’s bank records.

6. The Trial Court could not have rejected the application, more so in a situation, when the defendant has not produced his bank statement. In such circumstances, instead of rejecting the application, the Trial Court should have directed the defendant to produce relevant bank records.

7. Hence the following:

ORDER

a) The petition is allowed b) The order dated 20.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.123/2022 on the file of Civil Judge, Athani, is set aside.

c) The defendant is directed to furnish the bank statement pertaining to his bank account.

d) In case the defendant does not produce the same, the Court shall issue summons to the Manager, State Bank of India, Athani Branch, to secure bank statement of the defendant.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 100