IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

PRESENTATION FORM

WP FR NO. / 2024 (GM CPC)

IN
WP NO. / 2024 (GM CPC)

ADVOCATE: DISTRICT: - Uttar Kannda

Sri. Subhash J. Baddi BETWEEN:

Advocate-High Court
#63, 3rd Floor, Pride Icon, Smt. Padmashri
Gokul Road, Hubballi – 580030
Mobile: 9880168614 AND:
KAR/1314/2004
[email protected] N.C Lokesh

Court fee
Sl.N
Description of Paper Presented Affixed on the
o
Paper
1. Memorandum of Writ Petition Rs. 100/-

2. Vakalatnama – ( ) Rs. 50/-

3. Interim Application No. _ __ for Stay

Number of copies furnished other side Served

Presented by: Subhash J. Baddi, Advocate

Advocate for Petitioner.

Received Paper with
Court-fee labels as above

DATE: -07-2024.

DHARWAD Receiving Clerk.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT: DHAWRAD

WRIT PETITION NO. / 2024 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN :

Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree W/o. N.C.Lokesh

…Petitioner

AND :

N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkann … Respondent

SYNOPSIS

Sl. Date of
Details
No. Event
29-11-2007 Petitioner and respondent Marriage was solemnized

1. at Vakkaligara Sabhabhavan situated at

Doddaballapur as per Hindu customs and rites.
The petitioner filed an application No. 12 to dismiss
2. 27-06-2023
or reject the petition.
Senior Civil Judge and Pr. J.M.F.C. Sirsi passed an
3. 05-01-2024
order dismissing I.A. No. 12 filed by the petitioner.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The respondent was already filed petition for restoration of

marriage i.e. MC.67/2020 for restitution of conjugal rights against the
petitioner before Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi and the same is

The witness i.e. Gangappa C. Timmapur was examined by the

defendants as DW-2 admits that the original documents of Ex.P-5 is
with the defendant no.1. Hence, the original plaintiff filed the instant
application requesting the trial court to direct the defendant no.1 to
produce the original copy of the Ex.P-5 i.e. relinquishment deed
which is in the custody of defendant no.1. It is necessary to secure
the original document to adjudicate the matter effectively. However,
the trial court has erroneously dismissed the said application
believing the version of the defendants on the ground that the
plaintiff has not taken any admission from the mouth of the
defendants witness about the original of the Ex.P-5. Hence, this writ
petition.

Place : Dharwad (Subhash J. Baddi)

Date : 09/03/2020 Advocate for
Petitioners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

AT: DHAWRAD
(Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT PETITION NO. / 2020 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN : Trial Court High

Court

1. Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree Plaintiff Petitioner

W/o. N.C.Lokesh, Age: 55 years, Occ: No.1(a) No.1
Household,

2. Tabrej S/o Dadasab @ Dadapeer Plaintiff Petitioner

Tadapatri, Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie No.1(b) No.2

Both are residenent of Kolekar Plot, Old Hubballi, Tq: Hubballi, Dist:
Dharwad – 580024

AND :

1. N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkanna, Age:47 Defendant Responden

years, Occ: Agriculture and Tailoring, No.1 t No.1
2. Smt. Mohammadabi W/o Mahaboobsab Defendant Responden
Tadapatri, aged about 72 years, Occ: No.2 t No.2
Household work,

3. Gousamodinsab S/o Mahaboobsab Defendant Responden

Tadapatri, aged about 37 years, Occ: No.3 t No.3
Weaver,

4. Kumari. Munni Alias Malanbi D/o Defendant Responden

Mahaboobsab Tadapatri, aged about No.4 t No.4
35 years, Occ: Agriculture and
Tailoring,

5. Kumari Noorjanbi D/o. Mehaboobsab Defendant Responden

Tadapatri, aged about 26 years, Occ: No.5 t No.5
Student,

All are resident of Lakkundi, Tq: Gadag – 582115

6. Budappa S/o. Fakkirappa Gadagi, aged Defendant Responden

about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. No.6 t No.6
House No. Kurabageri Oni,
Lakkundi, Tq. Dist: Gadag - 582115

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

The petitioners above named beg to submits as under:

1. The original plaintiff i.e. deceased Dadasab had filed a suit

for cancelling the relinquishment deed dated 05-06-2012

against the respondents in O.S. No. 185/2013 before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag. The plaintiff

contended that the agriculture land bearing R.S. No. 670/2

measuring 9 acre situated at Lakkundi village of Gadag Taluka

measuring originally owned by the father of the original plaintiff

i.e., late Jandisab. The said Jandisab died about 40 years back

leaving behind wife, two sons and daughter. In FDP No.

02/2008, the daughter Anwarbegum and two brothers were

compromised and Anwarbegum was given Southern 3 acres out

of RS No.670/2A towards her share. Therefore R.S. No.670/2A

come to be sub – division number as R.S.670/2A/1 which is the

suit property and the original plaintiff and the present

defendants were become joint owners of the suit property.

2. That the plaintiff that the defendants were requested the

Dadasab and his wife to execute the Registered Mortgage Deed

to availed the loan on the suit schedule property to perform the

marriage of the daughters however on 05-06-2012 the

defendants taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff and

his wife had taken the signature on the relinquishment deed

fraudulently. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit,

Copy of the amendment plaint in O.S. No. 185/2013 before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag is produced

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE “A”.

3. That the defendant no.1 to 5 appeared through their

counsel and filed the written statement contended that the they
were in the actual and lawful possession of the suit property.

The original plaintiff was his own willing to relinquish the right

over the suit property and executed the deed in fevour of the

defendants. The transaction between the plaintiff and the

defendant no.1 and 6 is well within the knowledge of the

plaintiff. The respondents filed written statement denying the

claims made in the plaint and requested the court to dismiss the

suit. Copy of the written statement filed by the petitioners in

O.S. No. 185/2013 is produced and marked as ANNEXURE “B”.

4. The petitioners submit that it is the specific case of the

original plaintiff that on 05-06-2012 the respondent no.1 to 5

herein taking advantage of the illiteracy of the original plaintiff

and his wife had taken the signature on the relinquishment

deed fraudulently and executed the Ex.P-3. However on 05-06-

2012, the original plaintiff and the respondents herein were

executed the Ex.P-5 i.e. relinquishment deed.

5. That in the cross examination of the DW-3 he admits his

signature on the Ex.P-5 which is executed on 05-06-2012 and

signature was marked as Ex.P5 (a). The same is exhibited as

secondary evidence on the objection of the defendants. The

copy of the Ex.P-5 is produced and marked as ANNEXURE –

“C” and the copy of the deposition of DW-3 are produced and

marked as ANNEXURE “D”.

6. That the witness i.e. Gangappa C. Timmapur was

examined by the defendants as DW-2 and he admits in the

cross examination that the original documents of Ex.P-5 is with

the defendant no.1. The copy of the deposition of DW-3 are

produced and marked as ANNEXURE “E”.

7. That the defendant no.1 was examined himself as DW-1

admits the signature of DW3 in the Ex.P-5 in his further cross

examination. The contents of cross examination of DW-1 reveals

that the defendant no.1 was purposely avoid to produce the

original copy of the Ex.P-5. The copy of the deposition of DW-1

are produced and marked as ANNEXURE “F”.

8. Therefore, the original plaintiff filed an application in I.A.

No. 10 under Order 11 Rule 14 & 15 R/W Section 151 of CPC to

direct the defendant no.1 to produce the original document of

the Ex.P-5 which is in his custody. It is necessary to secure the

original documents for the verification and proper appreciation

of the Court below and for adjudication of the dispute finally and

effectively. Copy of the application in I.A. No. 10 filed by the

original plaintiff in O.S. No. 185/2013 is produced herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE “G”.

9. The respondent no.1 to 5 filed objection to the I.A No.10

and contended that there is no such document in existence as

contended by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff himself has created

such document and produced xerox copy of the Ex.P-5; that

such document is not in the custody of the defendants no. 1 to

5 nor it is in existence. Copy of the objections filed by the

respondent no.1 to I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 185/2013 is produced

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE “H”.

10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after hearing both the

parties has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the

petitioners on the ground that the plaintiff has not taken any

admission from the mouth of the defendants witnesses about

the original of Ex.P-3 is with defendants. Hence, the impugned

order is illegal and erroneous. Copy of the impugned order

passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag on

I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 185/2013 is produced herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE “J”.

11. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by

the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag on I.A. No. 10 in
O.S. No. 185/2013 dated 20-02-2020, the petitioners seek to file

this writ petition on the following grounds inter alia.

12. The petitioners herein have not filed any other writ

petition on the same cause of action nor have they approached

any other forum for the same relief. The petitioners herein have

no other alternative remedy than to approach this Hon’ble court

under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

GROUNDS

13. It is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the

trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners is

illegal, erroneous and unsustainable in law.

14. The trial court failed to note that it is the specific case of

the original plaintiff that on 05-06-2012 the respondent no.1 to

5 herein taking advantage of the illiteracy of the original plaintiff

and his wife had taken the signature on the relinquishment

deed fraudulently and executed the Ex.P-3. However on 05-06-

2012, the original plaintiff and the respondents herein were

executed the Ex.P-5 i.e. relinquishment deed. The court below

without appreciating the said aspect, has erroneously dismissed

the application filed by petitioners and hence the order passed

by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

15. The petitioners respectfully submit that the trial court has

dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on the ground

that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to the

existence of Ex.P-5 itself and that plaintiff has not taken any

admission from the mouth of defendants witnesses about the

Original of Ex.P-5 is with the defendants. However plaintiff had

elicited from the mouth of the DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 that the

Ex.P-5 in in existence. DW-3 who is witnesses to the Ex.P-5

admits that the same is executed on 05-06-2012 itself. Further

the DW-1 is also admits that the original document of Ex.P-5 is

in the custody of defendant no.1 himself. It is submitted that the

trial court should have drawn inference from the said

depositions and ought to have allowed the application filed by

the petitioners. However, the trial court has wrongly dismissed

the application filed by the petitioners.

16. That the matter is decided without looking into the

correctness of the said document, then, the petitioners will be

put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, the petitioners

prays this Hon’ble court to quash the order passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge and to allow the application filed by

the petitioners.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER

 The petitioners herein submits that, the court below after

passing the impugned order has proceeded with the matter and

the matter is posted for arguments. It is submitted that the

petitioners have heavily relied upon the fact of relinquished

deed i.e. Ex.P5 to prove their case and if the original document

of Ex.P-5 as sought by the petitioners is not secured for

consideration of the court below and the matter is adjudicated

without looking into the correctness of the said document, then,

the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence

the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to grant

interim order as prayed for by the petitioners.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IT IS PRAYED THAT, this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any such writ or

direction to:

(a) Quash the impugned order dated 20-02-2020 passed by

the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag on I.A. No. 10 in

O.S. No. 185/2013 vide Annexure ‘J’, in the interest of justice

and equity.

(b) Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble court

deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of

the case.
 INTERIM PRAYER

Pending disposal of the above writ petition, it is prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all the further

proceedings of O.S. No. 185/2013 pending on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag in the interest of

justice and equity.

Place : Dharwad (Subhash J. Baddi)

Date : 09-03-2020 Advocate for
Petitioners
Address for Service

Subhash J. Baddi
Advocate,
#286, Ravinagar,
Hubballi – 580030

Cell No. 9880168614

--
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT: DHAWRAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 145621 / 2020 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN :

Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree W/o. N.C.Lokesh

and others …Petitioners
AND :

N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkanna

and others …
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Tabrej S/o. Dadasab @ Dadapeer Tadapatri, Age: 35 years,

Occ: Coolie, R/o, Kolekar Plot, Old Hubballi, Hubballi today at
Dharwad, do hereby state on oath and solemn affirmation as under :

1. I am the petitioner No. 2 in the above case. The petitioner no.1

is my mother. I am acquainted with the facts of the suit. I am also
authorized to swear to this affidavit on behalf of the other petitioners.

2. I state that, the statements made in paras 1 to 16 of the

accompanying petition are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

3. I state that, the Annexure ‘A’ to Annexure ‘J’ are the true
copies of the originals.

Place : Dharwad
Date : 09-03-2020

Identified by me :

(Subhash J. Baddi)
Advocate

No. of corrections :
-----
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT: DHAWRAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 145621 / 2020 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN :

Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree W/o. N.C.Lokesh

…Petitioners

AND :

N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkanna

and others …
Respondents

INDEX

Sl. Page
Particulars
No. No.
1. Synopsis 1–2
2. Memorandum of Writ Petition 3–9
3. Verifying Affidavit 10
Annexure Copy of the amended plaint in O.S. No.
4. 11 - 20
‘A’ 185/2013
Annexure
5. Copy of the written statement 21 - 24
‘B’
Annexure
6. Copy of the Ex.P-5 25 - 26
‘C’
7. Annexure Copy of the deposition of DW-3 27 - 30
 ‘D’
8. Annexure ‘E’ Copy of the deposition of DW-2 31 – 34
9. Annexure ‘F’ Copy of the deposition of DW-1 35 – 44
Annexure Copy of the I.A. No.10 filed by the
10. 45 – 48
‘G’ petitioner in O.S. No. 185/2013
Annexure Copy of the objections filed by the
11. 49
‘H’ respondent no.1 to 5 to I.A. No. 10
Copy of the impugned order passed by the
12. Annexure ‘J’ Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, 50 – 57
Gadag on I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 185/2013
58
13 Vakalat

Place : Dharwad (Subhash J. Baddi)

Date : 09-03-2020 Advocate for
Petitioners
 ----

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

AT: DHAWRAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 145621 / 2020 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN :

Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree W/o. N.C.Lokesh

…Petitioners

AND :

N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkanna

and others …
Respondents

MEMO FOR DISPENSATION OF NOTICE TO

RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 6

In the above matter, the Advocate for the petitioner no. 1

and 2 submits that there is no claim or relief against the

respondent nos. 2 to 6. They are formal party to this

proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to dispense with the issuance of notice to

respondent Nos.2 to 6, in the interest of justice.

Place : Dharwad (Subhash J. Baddi)

Date : 13-12-2019 Advocate for
Petitioners
----
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT: DHAWRAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 145621 / 2020 (GM CPC)

BETWEEN :

Smt. Padmashree S M @ Padmashree W/o. N.C.Lokesh

and others …Petitioners

AND :

N.C. Lokesh S/o. Chikkanna

and others …
Respondents

MEMO OF POSTING

In the above matter, the Petitioner has sought for an interim order. Since the

matter is of urgent in nature, the trial court has not issuing necessary direction

to the defendant no.1 to produce the document as sought in the I.A. No.10.
Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the office to

post the above matter for Preliminary Hearing/Admission/ Hearing on IA /

Orders on -03-2020 in the interest of justice and equity.

Place: Dharwad (Subhash J. Baddi)

Date : -03-2020 Advocate for the Appellant

(KAR 1314/04 - 9880168614)