Shri Ramchandrappa S/O Nagalingappa Potadar Vs Shri Basavaraj S/O Malleshappa Navalagund

SHRI. RAMCHANDRAPPA S/O. NAGALINGAPPA POTADAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. RAMACHANDRA POTADAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 209, NOW RESIDING AT NO.1, KING’S COURT, HOUSE NO.103, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLESHAPPA NAVALAGUND, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 2^ND CROSS, ANAND NAGAR, RON, TQ: RON, DIST GADAG – 582 209.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RON ON I.A NO.21 IN O.S NO.270/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9299 WP No. 101843 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶23

The petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

A. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10/02/2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron on I.A No.21 in O.S No.270/2014 vide Annexure – A;

¶25

B. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶26

The respondents herein filed a suit for specific performance to which the petitioner denied execution of the agreement. Accordingly, an issue was framed by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC seeking summons to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Dharwad, and production of the original attendance register to verify the genuineness of the signatures in the agreement of sale. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before the Court, challenging the said order.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9299 WP No. 101843 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The respondent though served has remained

¶31

unrepresented.

¶32

One of the key issues is whether the defendant executed the agreement of sale on 12.10.2012. Verification of signatures through comparison with admitted signatures in the attendance register is crucial and oral evidence alone would not resolve the matter. Denial of the relief under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC touches the root of the matter. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34