Karnataka High Court
WP/25162/2026 of SRI. K P CHAMAPAKADHAMASWAMY Vs SRI.VENKATAPPA on 18 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010548012026 NC: 2026:KHC:44467 WP No. 25162 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.25162 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K P CHAMAPAKADHAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.25162 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. K P CHAMAPAKADHAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. S. PUTTASWAMY
RESIDENT OF NO.291,
1ST MAIN ROAD WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 086.
2.
SMT. RANI KUMARI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O SRI K. P. CHAMPAKADHAMASWAMY
RESIDENT OF NO.291, 1ST MAIN ROAD
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 086.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH,
2.
SMT. BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE GANESH,
3.
SRI. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O LATE GANESH,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
5.
SRI. KAUSHIK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
SL.NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT
GIDADAKONENAHALLI VILLAGE AND
MUDDINAPALYA DHAKLE
VISHWANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 091.
6.
SRI. THIMMAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE MUDALAPPA
RESIDING AT GIDADAKONENAHALLI
MUDDINAPALYA DHAKLE
VISHWANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 091.
7.
SRI. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE MUDLAPPA
RESIDING AT GIDADAKONENAHALLI
MUDDINAPALYA DHAKLE
VISHWANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 091.
8.
SRI. A. S. JAYARAMU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O M. SIDDANNA
RESIDENT OF NO.2036
1ST MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT
II STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 040
HC-KAR
9.
SRI. H. S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O H. SEETHARAM
RESIDENT OF NO.9/1
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE – 560 004.
10.
SRI. H. PRANESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
S/O H. VEERABHADRA UPADHYAYA
RESIDING AT NO.35/1, 7TH CROSS
7TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE – 560 003.
11.
SRI. H. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE VEERABHADRA UPADHYA
RESIDING AT NO.10/7, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 020.
12.
SRI. H. P. VEERENDRA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O H. PRANESH RAO
RESIDING AT NO.35/1,
7TH CROSS 7TH MAIN ROAD,
MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE – 560 003.
13.
SRI. M. BALA PRASAD REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O RAGUNANDANA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.92, SRI SAI NILAYA
5TH MAIN, AGS LAYOUT
BANGLAORE - 560 061.
14.
SMT. M. JAYASRI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O SRI. M. BALA PRASAD REDDY
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.92, SRI SAI NILAYA
5TH MAIN, AGS LAYOUT
BANGLAORE - 560 061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R12)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR
WRIT BY WAY OF CERTIORARI AND OR IN LIKE NATURE OF
WRIT SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ANNEXURE-F IMPUGNED ORDER
ON I.A NO.16 TO 18 OF 2026 FILED I.A NO.16 UNDER
SECTION 151 OF CPC, I.A NO.17 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC
AND I.A NO.18 UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH
151 OF CPC ORDER DATED 22/07/2026 PASSED IN O.S
NO.2966/2024
PENDING
ON
THE
FILE
OF
THE
XXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-36) AS PER ANNEXURE - D1, D2 & D3 AND ALLOW THE
SAID I.A’s.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 22.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.16 to 18 in O.S.No.2966/2024 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, the petitioners/ plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.2966/2024 seeking declaration that the suit schedule B property is an easement of necessity, being the only approach road for the plaintiffs, and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.16 under Section 151 of the CPC to reopen the side of the plaintiffs, I.A.No.17 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC for recall of order, and I.A.No.18 under Order 16 Rule 1 of the CPC to furnish the list of witnesses. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court.
3. While dismissing the applications, the trial Court relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and observed that the opportunity given by the Court to the plaintiffs was not properly utilized. The order sheet reveals that the plaintiffs are indulged in dilatory tactics. The legal maxim “law helps the vigilant, not
HC-KAR
those who sleep over their rights” emphasizes that the law assists those who are proactive in protecting their rights, not those who are negligent or inactive, and accordingly the applications were dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2024, and if one date is fixed, the petitioner will examine the witness and complete it in one day, and he will not seek any further adjournments.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants was given sufficient time, but as it was not utilized and applications were filed one after the other, the trial Court rightly passed the order, and no interference is called for with the well-considered order passed by the trial court.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit was filed in the year 2024. The plaintiffs have now filed applications to reopen, recall, and furnish the list of witnesses. Except for referring to
HC-KAR
various judgments of the Apex Court, the trial Court failed to consider the case of the petitioner. In these circumstances, balancing the interests of both parties, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. The order dated 22.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.16 to in O.S.No.2966/2024 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.16 to 18 are allowed. ii. The petitioners shall examine the witnesses on 22.08.2026, and no further time shall be granted. iii. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the timeline fixed by this Court in MFA. If the petitioners fail to proceed with the matter as per the timeline, the trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
HC-KAR
iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39