IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.117174/2019(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1 . SMT.GIRIJA

W/O ULAVAPPA BOLASHETTY

AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O: H.NO.8-LIG-II,

KHB COLONY, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,

HALIYAL TOWN-581329,

TQ: HALIYAL,DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2 . SRI.RAKESH

S/O ULAVAPPA BOLASHETTY,

AGE: 36 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSIENSS,

R/O: H.NO.8-LIG-II,

KHB COLONY,NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,

HALIYAL TOWN-581329,

TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

3 . SRI.RAJESH

S/O ULAVAPPA BOLASHETTY,

AGE: 33 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSIENSS,

R/O: H.NO.8-LIG-II,

KHB COLONY, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,

HALIYAL TOWN-581329,

TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.R M KULKARNI,ADV. & HEMALEKHA K.S.ADVS.)

AND

1 . SRI.VARADA

S/O CHANDAYYA SHETTY

AGE: 59 YEARS,

2

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,

R/O: RAJESHWARI NILAYA,

BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE,

HALIYAL TOWN-581329,

TQ: HALIYAL,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2 . SMT.PARVATI

W/O PRASHANT KORI

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O: MARKET ROAD,

SAGAR-577401,

TQ: SAGAR,

DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.NARAYAN V. YAGI, ADV. FOR R1)

(NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO

ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF

CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HALIYAL

PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO

STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.37/2017 ON THE FILE

OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HALIYAL, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE

ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3

: ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.2

to 4 challenging the order dated 18.11.2019, wherein, the

learned

Judge

has

rejected

the

application

seeking

permission to produce zerox copy of affidavit and sale

agreement dated 26.09.2007.

2.

Facts leading to the case are as under:

Respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific

performance

of

contract

in

OS

No.37/2017

seeking

enforcement of agreement dated 26.09.2007. Respondent

No.1/pliantiff to corroborate and substantiate his contention

according to the plaint has led in evidence and produced

original agreement dated 26.09.2007.

3.

The respondent No.1/plaintiff has led in evidence and

closed his side. The present petitioners who are defendants

have commenced with their evidence by examining DW-1.

Defendants have sought to produce the zerox copies of suit

agreement and the other agreement dated 05.04.2010.

The learned Judge has rejected the prayer of DW-1 to

4

produce zerox documents on the ground that plaintiff has

already produced the originals. The said order is under

challenge before this Court.

4.

Counsel for petitioner would vehemently argue and

contend before this Court that petitioners have specifically

pleaded in the written statement that documents relied on

by respondents/plaintiffs are concocted and tampered and

thereby it is necessary to produce the copies of zerox

retained by the petitioners. In this background, he would

submit that learned Judge ought to have permitted the

present petitioners to rely on zerox copies of the documents

which are already placed by way of original by respondent

No.1/plaintiff.

5.

To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the

Judgment rendered by Co-ordinate bench of this Court in

Shivalingamma and others v/s Revansiddappa since

deceased by LRs and others, reported in 2020(I) KCCR

854. Relying on this Judgment he would submit to this

Court that this Court has in fact permitted the parties

therein to rely on zerox copies of partition deed and

5

memorandum dated 19.06.1972. On these set o