IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50754 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
K.S.NANJUNDEGOWDA, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O. BORAMMA BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . K.N.NAJUNDEGOWDA, S/O K.S.NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEAS, R/O KODIHALLI VILLGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
2 . SMT. GEETHA, W/O ROOPESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O DODDAKUCHEVU VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
3 . SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O K,S.NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
4 . SRI. GIRISH, S/O K.S.NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNAAYAPATTANA TQ., HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 9.10.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.IX IN O.S.NO.207/2013 O NTHE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOLENARASIPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.207/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 09.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Holenarasipura having favoured Respondents’ application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC, 1908, has ordered for DNA test.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of considered opinion that the subject matter of this writ petition is substantially covered by a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.S.SHIVAKUMAR V/S P.H.SUBBARAYAPPA AND OTHER, 2017(5) KAR.L.J. 389 and therefore, does not merit indulgence, especially when the petitioner has denied legitimacy.
3. The other reason for not granting indulgence in the matter is that, the impugned order being a product of exercise of discretion by the learned trial Judge, this Court ordinarily will not undertake a deeper scrutiny/examination thereof, as held by the Apex Court in the case of SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, (2003) 3 SCC 524, in the absence of glaring error warranting interference.
In the above circumstances the writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE DS