Karnataka High Court
WP/371/2025 of SMT. K. JAYAMMA Vs SMT JAYAMMA on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010009942025 NC: 2026:KHC:47109 WP No. 371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. K. JAYAMMA
W/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2.
SRI. LOKESH
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3.
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4.
SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHANAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
(NOW RAMANAGARA DISTRICT) - 562 109.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
1.
SMT JAYAMMA
D/O LATE C. NARAYANAGOWDA
W/O SRI. BAIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 7,
SHESHAGIRIHALLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109
2.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE C. NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.172,
7TH CROSS
GOVINDARAJA NAGAR
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 079.
REPRESENTED BY HOLDER GPA
SRI. V. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 172,
7TH CROSS GOVINDARAJA NAGAR
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 079
3.
SRI. C.N. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE C. NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDENT OF CHANAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KODIYALA KARENAHALLI
BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
(NOW RAMANAGARA DISTRICT) - 562 109
HC-KAR
4.
SRI. R. SRIRAM
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENT AT YELETHUTADA PLAYA
ANJANAPURA POST
UTHARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 062
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VARUN JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. USHA S.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DTD. 22.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA
ALLOWING I.A.NO. 14 FILED BY R-1 UNDER SECTION 151 CPC
IN O.S.NO. 99/2015 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-F ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
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 writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No.14 in O.S. No.99/2015 dated 22.10.2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagar.
HC-KAR
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed a suit seeking partition, separate possession, and a permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4. In that suit, I.A. No.14 was filed by the respondent, stating that the cross-examination of defendant No.6, the purchaser, would be deferred until defendant Nos.1 to 5 were examined. The said application came to be allowed by the impugned order.
3. While allowing the application, the Trial Court observed that defendants Nos.1 to 4 have not adduced their evidence. It is true that defendant No.6 has adduced his evidence. As plaintiff No.1 has questioned the alienation of a portion of the suit schedule properties in favor of defendant No.6 by defendants Nos.1 to 5, plaintiff No.1 has the right to cross-examine defendants Nos.1 to 5 first. Defendant No.6 would step into the shoes of defendants Nos.1 to 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court, by exercising the power under Section 151 of the CPC, deemed it appropriate to defer the cross-examination of defendant No.6 by plaintiff No.1 until the evidence of defendants Nos.1 to 5 is complete.
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued in support of the petition and submitted that, as the plaintiff has no objection to the application, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who is plaintiff No. 2, submits that plaintiff No. 1 has compromised with the defendant. Having stalled the proceedings for a period of one year, he now comes before the Court stating that he has no objection to allowing the application. It is submitted that the application filed is frivolous.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff does not dispute the fact that he has compromised with the defendant. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the trial, he has no objection to allowing this petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. This Court is not inclined to go into any of the aspects pertaining to the merits of the matter. I.A. No.14 was filed seeking to defer the cross-examination of defendant No.6, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. Now, the plaintiff himself has no objection. Hence, this Court
HC-KAR
need not go into any of the aspects. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 22.10.2024 passed on IA No.14 in OS No.99/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagar, is set aside. Consequently, IA No.14 is allowed. ii. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2015, the Trial court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6