Karnataka High Court
WP/27839/2026 of SMT SREE KRUPA Vs SMT AMRUTHA S KUMAR on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010607392026 NC: 2026:KHC:52639 WP No. 27839 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27839 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SREE KRUPA WIFE OF SRI. NARAYANA SARMA.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27839 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SREE KRUPA
WIFE OF SRI. NARAYANA SARMA. V,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.24/D, 37TH A CROSS,
NEAR JSS COLLEGE, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER.
SRI. NARAYANA SARMA.V,
SON OF SRI. SHANKAR RAO. V,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
ALSO RESIDING AT NO.24/D, 37TH A CROSS,
NEAR JSS COLLEGE, 8TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. AMRUTHA S. KUMAR
WIFE OF SRI. SHANKAR KUMAR,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.290, 5TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT
I STAGE, BANGALORE 560 076.
2.
SMT. RAMA. S. RAO
WIFE OF LATE SRI. SRINIVAS RAO,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.517, YOGASHRI,
27TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 098.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2024, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-26), IN O.S.NO.114/2024, DIRECTING
THE PETITIONER/ 2ND DEFENDANT TO COMMENCE EVIDENCE, INSTEAD OF DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF TO
COMMENCE EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW, AS PER
ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION, SET ASIDE THE ORDER
AND ETC,.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
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 is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.114/2024, wherein defendant No.2 has been directed to lead evidence before the evidence of the plaintiff. The said order is dated 18.06.2024, whereas the present petition has been filed on 28.08.2026, with a delay of 26 months.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the stay of further proceedings granted in Writ Petition No.34761/2024, filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order rejecting the application for amendment.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The order impugned is dated 18.06.2024. Subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which came to be rejected on 28.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.34761/2024 on
HC-KAR
09.12.2024. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 23.03.2026.
5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner chose to challenge the order dated 28.11.2024 in Writ Petition No.34761/2024. Nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 along with the order dated 28.11.2024. However, it is only after dismissal of the said writ petition that the present writ petition, impugning the order dated 18.06.2024, has been filed.
6. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition for the delay in approaching this Court. The delay of more than 26 months is not reasonable to be ignored so as to entertain the present petition. In the absence of any explanation constituting sufficient cause, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9