Karnataka High Court
Shri Jararkhan S/O Validadkhar Pathan vs Shri Sanjay Ganapat Pol on 3 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621
WP No. 107367 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 107367 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JARARKHAN,
S/O VALIDADKHAN PATHAN
AGE. 40 YEARS,
OCC. SERVICE,
R/O H.NO.3847,
MEHER MANJIL,
MESTRI GALLI,
NIPANI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEGDE SHREEVATSA SURESH, ADVOCATE)
VINAYAKA
BV
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.10.06 10:23:09
AND:
+0530
1. SHRI SANJAY GANAPAT POL
AGE. 58 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O BIDWADI,
TQ. KANKAVLI,
DIST. SINDHUDURG,
MAHARASHTRA 416 602.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621
WP No. 107367 of 2025
HC-KAR
SHRI ABUBAKKAR @ IMTIYAZ
DADMOHAMMED
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S
2. SAMINA KHAN ABUBAKAR
@ IMTIYAZ PATHAN
AGE. 60 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. FAIZULHAZ ABUBAKAR
@ IMTIYAZ PATHAN
AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
BOTH R/O FIDAHUSSAIN MANZIL,
1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO.27,
SADASHIVA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
18.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.49 BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, NIPPANI IN OS NO.20/2017 (ERSTWHILE OS
NO.144/2013) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED
IN LIST DT. 10/10/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C3; ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY ON
ANNEXURE-C3. AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621
WP No. 107367 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)
The plaintiff in O.S. No.20/2017 (Old O.S. No.144/2013)
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani (for short,
'the Trial Court'), is before this Court challenging the correctness
of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed on I.A. No.49, by which
the application filed by him under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 and
Section 30(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was rejected.
2. The suit in O.S. No.20/2017 (Old O.S. No.144/2013)
was filed for declaration that the gift in favour of defendant No.1
and the consequent sale in favour of defendant No.2 was void
and for other reliefs. Long after the trial in the suit was
concluded and when the suit was listed for the reply arguments
of the plaintiff, an application (I.A. NO.49) was filed by the
plaintiff for summoning certain documents from the custody of
defendant No.2. This application was opposed by defendant No.2
on the ground that the documents sought to be summoned were
already produced by defendant No.2 and that the application was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621
HC-KAR
designed only the delay the proceedings and harass defendant
No.2. The Trial Court noticing the conduct of the plaintiff rejected
the application in terms of the impugned order. While doing so,
the Trial Court has held as follows:
"It is pertinent to note here that, the matter is already
posted for reply arguments and at this stage, the plaintiff
engaging another counsel has moved these applications at the
fag end of the trial, when the matter is almost about to be set-
down to judgment. On one or the another pretext, the plaintiff
is causing delay in this matter, which implies his intention of
unwillingness to co-operate with the court proceedings, which is
leading to abuse of court proceedings and further, allowing such
applications will only cause mockery of justice and nothing
else."
"This matter is the direction matter from the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka wherein it is directed for the disposal
of this matter within two weeks from the date of the order in
W.P. No.106058/2025."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the documents summoned were pertinent and necessary to
decide the suit. He contends that the plaintiff had changed his
advocate who advised him to file the application to summon the
documents. He contends that no hardship or inconvenience
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13621
HC-KAR
would be caused to defendant No.2 if the documents were
summoned.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. He has not disputed the correctness of
the observations of the Trial Court which is extracted above.
These observations are felling and indicate the dilatory tactics
adopted by the plaintiff.
5. In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit
and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the
plaintiff to urge this as a ground in an appeal that may be filed
against any judgment and decree that may be passed in the suit.
Pending interlocutory applications do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
KMS
