Karnataka High Court
WP/29768/2026 of SRI. VERUPAKSHACHAR Vs SMT. C. M. SHANTHAMMA on 30 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010651082026 NC: 2026:KHC:54850 WP No. 29768 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29768 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VERUPAKSHACHAR S/O LATE MRUTHYUNJAYACHAR
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29768 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. VERUPAKSHACHAR
S/O LATE MRUTHYUNJAYACHAR @
MRUTHYUNJAYACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2.
SMT. VARALAKSHMI,
W/O SRI. VERUPAKSHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE.
SASALU HOBALI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. C. M. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE. MRUTHYUNJAYACHAR @
MRUTHYUNJAYACHARI,
W/O NAGENDRACHAR. R.C.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AKKIRAMPURA VILLAGE POST,
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBALI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SMT. M. MANJULA,
D/O LATE. MRUTHYUNJAYACHAR @
MRUTHYUNJAYACHARI,
W/O MANJUNATHACHARI. P.B..R.C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAMANNA GARDEN,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 12.12.24 PRODUCED AT ANNX-F ON I.A. FILED
UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALSO THE ORDER DTD.
22.08.26 PRODUCED AT ANNX-M I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION
151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL IN FDP NO.14/2022 BY
ISSUING OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
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
This petition is filed impugning the orders dated 12.12.2024 and 22.08.2026, whereby the applications seeking stay of the proceedings in FDP No.14/2022 till the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022 came to be rejected.
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not participate in the partition suit on account of undergoing treatment for neurological ailments. It is submitted that Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022 has been preferred seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree. It is further submitted that, if the FDP proceedings are concluded pending consideration of Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022, the said petition would be rendered infructuous.
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. The Trial Court noticed that an identical application seeking an identical relief had earlier been filed and came to be dismissed by order dated 12.12.2024. The order dated 22.08.2026 is the result of the second application seeking the same relief, which also came to be rejected. In view of the reasons assigned in the order dated 12.12.2024, the present petition impugns, in addition to the order dated 22.08.2026, the order dated 12.12.2024, without there being any explanation for the delay in challenging the said order.
HC-KAR
5. It appears that, in view of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting the applications by orders dated 12.12.2024 and 22.08.2026, both the orders have been impugned. Otherwise, the petitioners have no grievance against the order dated 12.12.2024. This Court finds no justification to entertain the present petition. The proper course for the petitioners would have been to pursue expeditious disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022. Even no prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in the interest of justice, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the expeditious disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No.37/2022, preferably within an outer limit of nine months from the date of placing a copy of this order before the Trial Court. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51