Disposed¶47

Sadanand Nilakantha Ganeshgudi v. Chidananda Vishwanath Ganeshgudi

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/104148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against final decree; certiorari under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; impugned Annexure-E order dated 11.04.2016 in F.D.P. No.1/2010, Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hangal; writ does not lie against final decree; remedy is Regular Appeal under Section 96 CPC; petition disposed of without merits; liberty to file Regular Appeal; exclusion of time from 30.05.2016 in computing limitation. Keywords: final decree, F.D.P., writ maintainability, Section 96 CPC, limitation exclusion, GM-CPC, Karnataka HC Dharwad.

What did the court decide?

No adjudication on merits; writ petition disposed of. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a Regular Appeal as advised in law, and time spent from 30.05.2016 (date of filing) till date ordered to be excluded in computing limitation. ¶47

Sadanand Nilakantha Ganeshgudi Vs Chidananda… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226/227 against the Annexure-E order in F.D.P. No.1/2010, which is a final decree — whether the writ petition lies or whether the remedy is a Regular Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

¶46

Court's answer

The impugned order being a final decree, the writ petition does not lie; the petitioner's remedy is to file a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.

¶47

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a Regular Appeal as advised in law.ratio¶48
The time spent from 30.05.2016 (the date of filing of the petition) till date is to be excluded in computing limitation.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) No. 104148 of 2016 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:15282), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), decided 07.11.2025 — Challenge to final decree: The petitioner sought certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure-E) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hangal in F.D.P. No.1/2010. Held: the impugned order is 'nothing but a final decree'; hence the writ petition does not lie, and the remedy of the petitioner is a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file a Regular Appeal as advised in law; and the time spent from 30.05.2016, the date of filing of the petition, till date was directed to be excluded in computing limitation, if any. Single-judge order; no dissent; no precedents cited; no monetary quantum involved.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15282 WP No. 104148 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104148 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SADANAND NILAKANTHA GANESHGUDI S/O LATE SRI NILAKANTHA VISHANATH GANESHGUDI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT: SOMAVARPET, HANAGAL.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CHIDANANDA VISHWANATH GANESHGUDI S/O LATE SRI. NILAKANTHA VISHANATH GANESHGUDI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT: NO.835, 2^ND STAGE, 3^RD CROSS, RAJEEVA NAGARA, MYSURU-560 019.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

SHASHIDHAR VISHWANATH GANESHGUDI S/O LATE SRI. NILAKANTHA VISHANATH GANESHGUDI,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT: SRI. MURARAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, 5^TH CROSS, DHARWAD.

¶17

PURUSHOTTAM VISHWANATH GANESHGUDI, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S.,

¶18

SMT. GAYATRI W/O LATE SRI. PURUSHOTTAM GANESHGUDI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT: P.W.D. QUARTERS, FOREST COMPOUND, BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15282 WP No. 104148 of 2016

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRIKRISHNA S/O LATE SRI. PURUSHOTTAM GANESHGUDI,

¶23

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: P.W.D. QUARTERS, FOREST COMPOUND, BELAGAVI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶24

SMT. THIPPAVVA ALIAS LALITHABAI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S.,

¶25

5A. RAJESH GOPALRAO SHIRAGOD S/O LATE SMT. TIPPAVVA @ LALITABAI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT: HOUSE NO.112, RANJU COLONY, SAMBAJI NAGAR, NEAR WADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590 005.

¶26

5B. RAVINDRA GOPALRAO SHIRAGOD S/O LATE SMT. TIPPAVVA @ LALITABAI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR ROSHNI TRUST, KUMARESHWAR NAGAR, HANAGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 104.

¶27

5C. SANJAY GOPALRAO SHIRAGOD S/O SMT. TIPPAVVA @ LALITABAI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: SOMARPETH, HANAGAL, HAVERI DISTIRCT-581 104.

¶28

5D. SUMA GOPALRAO SHIRAGOD W/O A.V. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT: MALAHAL VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.

¶29

5E. VINAYAK GOPALRAO SHIRAGOD S/O LATE SMT. TIPPAVVA @ LALITABAI,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15282 WP No. 104148 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT: HOUSE NO.112, RANJU COLONY, SAMBAJI NAGAR, NEAR WADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590 005.

¶34

SMT.GUNDAVVA @ PREMABAI W/O GOVINDAPPA SHIRAGODA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT: KONDAVADA STREET, HAVERI.

¶35

SMT.M SULOCHANA W/O BALARAO SABANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT: DOOR NO.79/80, PANEGALLI, SHAHAPURA, BELAGAVI.

¶36

SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O CHANDRAKANTH GULEDAGUDDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT: R.C. GINDE, GANESH MARG, RANAJANJARA COLONY, SAMBAJI NAGARA, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI.

¶37

… RESPONDENTS

¶38

(NOTICE TO R1 TO R8 ARE SERVED)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HANGAL IN F.D.P. NO.1/2010 DATED 11.04.2016 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15282 WP No. 104148 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶46

The impugned order is nothing but a final decree. Hence, the writ petition does not lie. The remedy to the petitioner is to file a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶47

Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.

¶48

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file Regular Appeal as advised in law.

¶49

The time spent from 30.05.2016, the date of filing of the petition till date is to be excluded in computing the limitation, if any.

¶50

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶51

CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1

Sadanand Nilakantha Ganeshgudi v. Chidananda Vishwanath Ganeshgudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Nilakantha Ganeshgudi v. Chidananda Vishwanath Ganeshgudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath S/O Timmappa Naik, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Guruprasad S/O Mallana Gowda Mali Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa Nayakmakkal Vs the Deputy Commissioner Dharwad

The Management of M/S Auma India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manjunath a Uppin

Manjunath a Uppin Vs M/S Auma (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Kumaraswamy S/O Late Rama Bhat, Vs the State of Karnataka