Maleyandragouda S/O Bhimanagouda Goudar Vs Bajiroa S/O Anantroa Deshpande

BAJIROA S/O. ANANTROA DESHPANDE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: BEHIND VENKATESH TALKIES, C/O: P.S.SIRAGUMPA, HUNGUND, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 118.

¶17

SANGAPP S/O. SANGANABASAPPA HEGEDAL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BINAJAWADAGI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶18

BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLESHAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BINAJAWADAGI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶19

SANGANNA S/O. MALLAPPA KAMARI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8736 WP No. 103764 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R/O: MAGINPETH, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 118.

¶24

RAYANAGOUDA S/O. BALANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIRE - UPANAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶25

CHANDANAGOUD S/O. BALANAGOUD PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIRE - UPANAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶26

HOLEGOUDA S/O. BALANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIRE - UPANAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶27

MAHANTESH S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: ITBP, R/O: BINJAWADAGI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 125.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HUNGUND TO DISPOSE THE O.S. NO.292/2010 PRODUCE AT ANNEXURE D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8736 WP No. 103764 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

Issuance of notice to the respondents is not required as relief sought is only for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.8, namely Bhimanagouda Goudar, entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.06.1983 in respect of land bearing R.S. No.82/3, measuring 13 acres, situated at Binjawadagi village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. The mother of defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of ₹39,500/- and on the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the said Bhimanagouda paid a sum of ₹12,000/as earnest money. Since defendant No.1 was a minor at the time, his mother, acting as his de facto guardian, executed the agreement of sale on the same day.

¶38

It is submitted that, upon receipt of the earnest

¶39

money, the mother of defendant No.1 handed over possession of the suit land to the father of the petitioner.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8736 WP No. 103764 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Subsequently, defendant No.1, after attaining majority, accepted an additional consideration of ₹5,300/- in the presence of village elders. Thereafter, on 10.02.1988, defendant No.1 executed a second agreement of sale in furtherance of the earlier transaction. On 23.01.1996, defendant No.1 executed a third agreement of sale in continuation of the previous two, wherein he agreed to sell the land for a total consideration of ₹54,000/-, out of which ₹40,000/- was paid as advance. The said third agreement was signed by the father of defendant No.1 and respondent No.6, indicating their consent and acknowledgment.

¶44

It is further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.8 are presently paying the land revenue for the suit property. In the light of these facts, the petitioner and respondent No.8 filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the year 2010. However, the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 7 have been repeatedly seeking adjournments on one pretext or another, thereby delaying the proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8736 WP No. 103764 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶48

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the suit for specific performance was instituted in the year 2010 and has remained pending for over 15 years. The repeated adjournments sought by the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 7, without substantial progress in the matter, amount to an abuse of the process of law and defeat the very object of expeditious disposal of civil litigation, particularly where contractual rights and possession are in issue.

¶50

In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the writ petition and issue a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits within a time-bound period. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52