The Writ Court disposed of a petition challenging an order under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC that summoned a Panchayat Development Officer to produce a relinquishment deed. The court held no interference was warranted.
Petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order allowing summons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 102129 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 102129/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVI W/O ADIVEPPA ASANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUNYAL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.01.14 11:21:25 +0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.IA NO. VIII DATED 02/11/2021 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MOODALAGI IN O.S. NO. 123/2017 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 102129 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 passed on I.A. No. VIII in O.S. No. 123/2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Moodalagi whereby the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC seeking issuance of summons to the Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Moodalagi, to produce the original relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2006, was allowed by the trial Court.
WP No. 102129 of 2022
the plaintiff and his witnesses in relation to all aspects of the matter including the said document and consequently no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the said document is summoned as directed by the trial Court.
SD JUDGE
BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the trial court order allowing summons for production of original relinquishment deed.
Whether the petitioner would suffer prejudice if the summoned document is produced before the trial court.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhyesham Vs. ChhabinathRelied on¶22
Radhyesham Vs. Chhabinath (2015) 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MAHADEVI W/O ADIVEPPA ASANNAVAR
LAMXNA S/O ARJUN METRI
SADASHIV S/O. SHIVAPPA MELGADE
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
