Karnataka High Court
CRP/612/2026 of L. SATHYANARAYANA, Vs N. ASHOK KUMAR on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010461582026 NC: 2026:KHC:42925 CRP No. 612 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.612 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. L. SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.612 OF 2026 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1.
L. SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
2.
SOMPALLI VANAJA,
W/O LATE S. JAYADEV,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT PLOT NO.105,
ROAD NO.1, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY H SETHIYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
N. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.457,
MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
GOVINDAPPA BADAVANE,
AMRUTHAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 092.
H. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
ALREADY ON RECORD
AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
H. K. MANJUNATHA
SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3.
H. K. SURESH
SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4.
H. K. MOHAN BABU
SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5.
H. K. DAYANAND
SON OF H KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.57/1,
1ST MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU – 560 004.
6.
H. S. MANJUNATH
SON OF SURESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
7.
LAKSHMI
DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8.
MANOHARA @ MALLAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9.
NAGVENI
DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
10.
SAVITHRI
HC-KAR
DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHWATHNARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11.
MEENAKSHAMMA
WIFE OF LATE H A SURESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
12.
VISWANATH
SON OF LATE H A SURESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 12 ARE
RESIDING AT, SHANTHI NAGARA,
4TH WARD, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
13.
H. V. NATARAJ
SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
14.
H V NAGARAJ
SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.13 AND 14 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.2821, BESTARA PETE,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
15.
H V RADHA KRISHNA
SON OF LATE H.P.D. VEERANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT GIFT CORNER,
BESTARA PETE,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
16.
H S ANAND
SON OF LATE H V SRIRAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17.
H S SATISH
HC-KAR
SON OF LATE H V SRIRAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.16 & 17 ARE
RESIDING AT SRIRAMA STORES,
BESTARA PETE,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2026, PASSED ON IA NO.XII IN O.S NO.140/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.140/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court.
2. The respondents herein have filed suit for Specific Performance and also seek relief that the compromise decree is not binding on them. In that regard, an application was filed by
HC-KAR
defendant Nos. 19 and 20, who are the purchasers, are seeking rejection of the plaint. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint itself states that a notice was issued in 2012, that the Agreement of Sale is from 2007, and that, by the notice dated 05.01.2012, the Agreement of Sale was terminated. From 2012 to 2016, when the suit was filed, it is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, it is the case that by the date the suit was filed, a compromise decree had already been entered into between the parties, and the property had fallen to the share of defendant Nos.19 and 20, who are the vendors of the petitioners therein. The petitioners have not sought any damages, as specific performance cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and this aspect was not considered by the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court has rightly considered that there is a cause of action, that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and that there are no grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Court.
HC-KAR
4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that, except for relying on the provisions and stating that limitation is a question of fact and law, without considering the case of the defendant the trial Court dismissed the application. The particular submission with regard to the averment in the plaint about the notice issued by the defendants canceling the agreement of sale, and in the light of the very averments stated in the plaint, the Court ought to have considered the submissions raised by the petitioners. But unfortunately, in a mechanical manner, observing that it is a question of fact and law, the trial Court dismissed the application.
5. Considering the fact that all the contentions raised by the petitioners are not considered by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 03.06.2026, passed in I.A. No. 12 in O.S.No.140/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapura,
HC-KAR
is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.
ii. The trial Court shall consider the application in light of the grounds raised by the petitioners.
iii. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
iv. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69