Karnataka High Court
WP/23447/2026 of SRI. K R MURALI MOHAN Vs SMT. CHOWDAMMA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010513502026 NC: 2026:KHC:54177 WP No. 23447 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 23447 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.R. MURALI MOHAN S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 23447 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. K.R. MURALI MOHAN
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT GUNDASHETTAPALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIPURA MANDAL, KUPPAM TALUK,
CHITOOR DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH - 517 425.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. THILAK ITTANGUR B N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O PEDDA VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT MULLURU KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE,
SHANTHIPURA MANDAL,
BOYANAPALLI POST,
KUPPAM TALUK, CHITOOR DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH - 517 425.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O PEDDA VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT MULLURU KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE,
SHANTHIPURA MANDAL,
BOYANAPALLI POST,
KUPPAM TALUK, CHITOOR DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH - 517 425.
3.
SMT. N. PUSHPA
W/O B.M. JAYAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BENNAVARA VILLAGE,
SRINIVASASANDRA POST,
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
NOW K.G.F. TALUK - 563 112.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
COMMON ORDER DATED 13.07.2026 PASSED BY THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., K.G.F, IN O.S.NO.281/2020 ON I.A.
NO. 10 AND I.A. NO. 11, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND
ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present petition impugns the order dated 13.07.2026, whereby the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and issue summons to the Tahsildar, KGF Taluk, for production of the entire Darkast records bearing No. LND-DAR 197/1961-62, came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be summoned under the application relate to the grant and survey phodi. It is submitted that certified copies of the said documents have already been produced and marked as Exs.P1 to P3. However, defendant No.3 is disputing the grant, and therefore, the original records are necessary for establishing the same.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
HC-KAR
4. The petitioner, in support of his case, has produced certified copies of the relevant documents, which have been marked as Exs.P1 to P3. The recording of evidence having been completed, the suit is presently at the stage of final hearing. At this stage, the impugned application has been filed seeking summoning of the original documents.
5. When certified copies issued by the competent authority have already been produced and marked before the Court, the mere denial of the grant by defendant No.3 during the course of oral arguments cannot constitute a ground to reopen the evidence and summon the original records from the competent authority. Certified copies duly issued by the competent authority carry a statutory presumption as to their authenticity.
6. In the present case, the application seeking summoning of the original documents appears to have been filed either on the basis of a mere apprehension or in response to the submissions advanced by defendant No.3 during the course of arguments. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41