Karnataka High Court
WP/22479/2026 of SMT. NARAYANAMMA Vs SRI RAJASHEKAR REDDY on 1 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010494462026 NC: 2026:KHC:47513 WP No. 22479 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 22479 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. R. NARAYANA REDDY
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22479 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O. R. NARAYANA REDDY AND
D/O. LATE. HANUMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT GUTTAPALYA VILLAGE
GOWNAPALLI POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 161
2.
SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O. REDDAPPA
D/O. LATE HANUMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT B.C. COLONY
NEAR SRIRAMA TEMPLE
B. KOTHAKOTE POST
MADANAPALLI TALUK
CHITTOOR DISTRICT-561 207
3.
SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O. BALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER
MR.MOHAN.
RESIDING AT GAJAGA VILLAGE
BOODHIKOTE HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O. LATE. OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YRS
5.
SRI. HARISH
S/O LATE OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YRS
6.
SRI. SURESH
S/O. LATE. OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YRS.
PETITIONER NO.3 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT GAJAGA VILLAGE
BOODHIKOTE HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114
7.
SMT. N. SUDHA
W/O. LATE. Y. SUBRAMANY
AGED ABOUT 47 YRS
8.
SRI. S.DARSHAN
S/O. LATE Y. SUBRAMANY
AGED ABOUT 28 YRS
9.
SRI. S. VARSHINI
S/O. LATE Y. SUBRAMANY
AGED ABOUT 23 YRS
PETITIONER NO.7 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT GAJAGA VILLAGE
BOODHIKOTE HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOVARDHAN S., ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI RAJASHEKAR REDDY
S/O. LATE. VENKATAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2.
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
3.
SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O. LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.008, B BLOCK
TNR VAISHNAVI APARTMENT
VIBGYOR SCHOOL ROAD
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU 560 066
4.
SRI T.K. LOKESH REDDY
S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.008, B BLOCK
TNR VAISHNAVI APARTMENT
VIBGYOR SCHOOL ROAD
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU -560 066
5.
SMT. RUKMANI K.
W/O LATE BABU REDDY
D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ULLAVAHALLI VILLAGE
SAKALAVARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560083
HC-KAR
6.
SMT. VARALAKSHMI
W/O SHANKAR REDDY
D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
28/1, PUTTAPPA COLONY
NEAR MARKET
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST
BENGALURU – 560 075
7.
SRI VENKATESH K.
S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. NO.008, B-BLOCK
TNR VAISHNAVI APARTMENT
VIBGYOR SCHOOL ROAD
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU -560 066
8.
SRI MANJUNATH K.
S/O. LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.008, B-BLOCK
TNR VAISHNAVI APARTMENT
VIBGYOR SCHOOL ROAD
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU- 560 066
9.
SRI MUNIYAPPA REDDY
S/O. LATE BADARIYAPPA
@MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10.
SRI CHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE BADARIYAPPA
@MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
HC-KAR
11.
SRI MUNI REDDY
S/O. LATE BADARIYAPPA
@MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 11 ARE
RESIDING AT THOOBARAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 038
12.
SMT. YERRAMMA
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
13.
SRI H. RAMACHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
14.
SRI VENKATESHA REDDY
S/O LATE. HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
15.
SMT. PADMA
D/O. LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 12 TO 15
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 138,
THUBRAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU -560 066
16.
SMT. MANJULA
D/O. LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODATHI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 035
HC-KAR
17.
SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O. LATE. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 138,
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 066
18.
SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O. LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT HAROHALLI
MUTHSANDRA POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU-560 087
19.
SMT. HEMAVATHI
D/O. LATE. HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
BOMMANAHALLI
BOMMANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560 068
20.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
21.
SRI. NARASAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
22.
SRI KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
23.
SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
24.
SRI LAKSHMANA REDDY
HC-KAR
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
25.
SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O. LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
26.
SRI SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.20 TO 26 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 176,
TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
27.
SMT. SARASAMMA
W/O SRI JAYARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.
YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET
KODIHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 075
28.
SMT. KALYANAMMA
W/O. T.C. SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.278,
60 FEET ROAD, BEML LAYOUT
6TH STAGE THUBARAHALLI
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 560066.
29.
SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
ADDE VISWANATHAPURA VILLAGE
KAKOLU POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU-562 110.
HC-KAR
30.
SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O. LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ESIDING AT THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU – 560066
31.
SRI. RAMESH REDDY
S/O. MUNIYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.409, 11TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS
BEML LAYOUT, 6TH STAGE
THUBARAHALLI
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 560066.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHENNAKESHAVA B.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2026 AS ANNEXURE-A
PASSED ON I.A. NO.31 IN O.S. NO. 8311/2006 ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.5 UNDER ORDER XXVI
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE THE SAID FILE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE
XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
(CCH-16).
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
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
Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.31 in O.S.No.8311/2006 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The petitioner herein has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 8311/2006 seeking partition and separate possession. In the suit, defendant No. 5 has filed I.A. No. 31 under Order XXVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC to issue a Commission for examination, as he is unable to attend the Court due to ill health. That application was allowed by the trial Court.
3. While allowing the application, the trial Court observed that defendant No.5 is suffering from severe osteoporosis and Knee orthotic condition, and that he had placed the medical certificate before the trial Court. In the medical certificate, the orthopaedic surgeon noted that defendant No. 5 cannot stand for long periods and has difficulty walking moderate distances due to illness. The trial Court observed that when the parties pleaded before the Court, their
HC-KAR
inability to appear in person and their request for an order appointing a court commissioner to record his evidence at his residence could not be rejected. Because of a party’s ill health or any other inconvenience on the part of the parties, the delivery of justice should not be impeded, and the application was allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that defendant No. 5 has appeared before the Criminal Court and attends all the family functions. In those circumstances, the trial court ought not to have allowed the application for the appointment of a commissioner. It is submitted that if the evidence is recorded before the court, the demeanour of witnesses and other aspects can be examined by the Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 10/ defendant No.5 submits that he cannot dispute the fact that he has appeared before the Court, as it is a criminal matter, and that he went to the Court only for appearance. However, cross- examination and other proceedings take a lot of time. As the doctor has clearly given a medical certificate stating his health
HC-KAR
reasons, the trial Court has rightly considered it and passed the order.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute that defendant No. 5 is about 77 years old. As per the medical certificate, defendant No.5 is suffering from severe osteoporosis and cannot stand for long hours. The apprehension stated by the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The court has rightly considered and held that, given the ill health of the party, the commissioner was appointed, and this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50