[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Pradeep Narayan Gurav vs Shri Sadashiv Parasu Gurav on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1960
WP No. 107397 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 107397 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PRADEEP NARAYAN GURAV,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHIVASHI, TQ. CHIKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 241.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SADASHIV PARASU GURAV,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHIVASHI, TQ. CHIKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 241.
2. ANANDA PARASU GURAV,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR HANUMAN AT- A/P-VANDUR
TQ. KAGAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA-416003.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR 3. SHRI. DATTATRAYA CALLING HIMSELF
LAXMAN KATTIMANI AS SON OF PANDURANG GURAV,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC SERVICE,
KARNATAKA R/O. VANAGITTI, TQ. BHUDARGAD,
DIST. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-416209.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO BE PASSED TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I A NO.11 IN O.S.
NO.159/2017 DATED 07-11-2024 OF THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, NIPPANI IN VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE. B. THAT THE COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS BE AWARDED.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1960
WP No. 107397 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.11 in OS
No.159/2017, dated 07.11.2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Nippani, the plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration
that he is the joint owner of the suit properties and
consequently, the defendants and men on their behalf, be
restrained by decree of permanent injunction not to cause the
obstruction and disturbance to the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties. In the said
suit, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed IA No.11 under Order XVI
Rule 6 of CPC to issue summons to the Headmaster/Principal
of Kendriya Shala, Koor, Taluk-Bhudargad, for production of
original register maintained by the School Authorities
regarding the School Leaving Certificate pertaining to
defendant No.3 and to lead evidence in respect of the said
document to meet the ends of justice and equity. The trial
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1960
HC-KAR
Court, by order impugned, dismissed the application. While
dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed that
the relief sought in the instant application and the relief
claimed in the suit are totally contradictory to each other and
that the plaintiff ought not to have sought for the relief of
declaration to declare that he is the joint owner of the suit
properties against all the defendants and he ought to have
excluded defendant No.3 from the said relief. If he were to
seek such a relief, then he could not have denied the
relationship of defendant No.3 with his joint family. The trial
Court, looking at the prayer and the relief that is sought,
which are contradictory to each other and in those
circumstances, observed that an IA that is filed contrary to the
relief that is sought is not required and dismissed the
application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this
Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/plaintiff submits that the trial Court ought to have
allowed this application, as though the defendant No.3 is
claiming to be a son of one Panduranga, the same is denied by
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1960
HC-KAR
the plaintiff. As such, it is very much essential to call for the
records, as he is relying on the school documents, whereas
the original was not produced before the Court. It is submitted
that without considering all these aspects, the trial Court had
dismissed the application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3/defendant No.3 submits that considering the prayer that
is sought and the IA that is filed, which is unconnected with
the relief in the suit and as that issue need not be decided by
the Court, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application
and there are no grounds to interfere.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. The petitioner had filed IA
No.11 to call for the records and to lead evidence of the
Headmaster of Kendriya School, with regard to the paternity
of defendant No.3. Why the paternity of defendant No.3 has to
be decided in a suit filed seeking declaration that he is a joint
owner of the property along with defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, as
there is no nexus between the relief sought and the IA that is
filed. The trial Court had rightly considered and rightly held
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1960
HC-KAR
that such an exercise need not be done. If any evidence has
to be adduced, the same has to be based on the pleadings and
the issues that are framed. Contrary to the pleadings, the
petitioner/plaintiff cannot choose to file any application and
adduce any evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the trial Court had rightly considered and passed the order.
Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly,
this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The instant writ petition is dismissed.
ii) All I.A.s in this petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
JTR
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
