Partly allowed¶58

Smt. Jalajakshi v. Sri. Devaraju R

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025WP/13922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 13922 of 2023 (GM-CPC); Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; decided 05-11-2025; Article 226/227 writ; mandamus to Trial Court for time-bound disposal of suit refused where issues not framed; direction to dispose of long-pending interim applications IA Nos.2 & 4 in O.S.No.82/2016 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakur) within two months; IA No.5 already disposed; parties served, pleadings complete; writ partly allowed; relevant to delays in disposal of suits and interim applications before Trial Courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part: prayer for time-bound disposal of O.S.No.82/2016 itself rejected; Trial Court directed to consider and dispose of IA Nos.2 & 4 in O.S.No.82/2016 as expeditiously as possible, not later than two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Smt. Jalajakshi Vs Sri. Devaraju R — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to dispose of the pending interim applications IA Nos.2, 4 and 5 filed in O.S.No.82/2016. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

Since IA No.5 had already been disposed of and IA Nos.2 & 4 were pending since 2016, the Trial Court was directed to consider and dispose of IA Nos.2 & 4 on merits, expeditiously, and not later than two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Unless exceptional circumstances are found, the Court normally will not issue a writ of mandamus directing the Trial Court to dispose of a pending suit within a time frame; since issues were yet to be framed in O.S.No.82/2016, the Court found no justification to issue such a mandamus, and the prayer for time-bound disposal of the suit was rejected.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by parties in O.S.No.82/2016 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakur) seeking (i) directions to dispose of pending interim applications IA Nos.2, 4 and 5, and (ii) a mandamus to dispose of the suit itself in a time bound manner. Held: absent exceptional circumstances, the High Court normally will not issue a writ of mandamus directing a Trial Court to dispose of a pending suit within a time frame; issues not having been framed in O.S.No.82/2016, that prayer was rejected. IA No.5 having been disposed of during the pendency of the writ petition, and IA Nos.2 & 4 pending since 2016 with pleadings complete, the Trial Court was directed to consider and dispose of IA Nos.2 & 4 on merits expeditiously, not later than two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44824 WP No. 13922 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13922 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JALAJAKSHI @ GANGAMMA W/O LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶11

SRI SHUBHASHAYA S/O LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶12

SMT. SEEMA D/O LATE DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶13

SMT. NIRMALA D/O LATE SYRIYAPPA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. KOMALAMMA D/O LATE SYRIYAPPA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶16

SRI BINDUSHEKAR WADEYAR S/O LATE SYRIYAPPA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶17

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF DASANUDDAIAHNAPALYA (D.M.PALYA) KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI R. SHASHI KUMAR, ADV.)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44824 WP No. 13922 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI DEVARAJU R S/O LATE K REVANNA @ DODDAVEERANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶24

RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT DASANUDDAIAHNAPALYA (D.M. PALYA) KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101.

¶25

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶26

UMESH S/O LATE SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶27

RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 ARE

¶28

R/AT REVANASIDDESHWARA NILAYA BEHIND POLICE GROUND KRISHNA NAGARA B H ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶29

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI @ THAYAMMA D/O LATE SIRIYAPPA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶30

SRI BHAGHAVAN RENUKA S/O LATE SIRIYAPPA WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶31

RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 ARE R/AT DASANUDDAIAHNAPALYA (D.M. PALYA) KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI P.M. GOPI, ADV., FOR

¶34

SRI P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M, ADV.)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44824 WP No. 13922 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

HONBLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKUR TO DISPOSE OF THE PENDING INTERIM APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.2, 4 AND 5 FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.82/2016 AS PER ANNX-D,E AND G.

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs:

¶44

(a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the Hon'ble III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakur, to dispose of the pending interim applications IA No.2, 4 and 5 filed by the respective parties/plaintiff in OS.No.82/2016 as per Annexure-D, E & G.

¶45

(b) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the Hon'ble III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakur to dispose of the OS.No.82/2016 in time bound manner as per Annexure-A.

¶46

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44824 WP No. 13922 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that IA.no.5

¶50

has been already disposed of by the Trial Court and IA.nos.2 & 4 are yet to be disposed of. He submits that all the parties in the suit are served and pleadings are complete.

¶51

Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent does not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶52

It is trite that unless exceptional circumstances are found, this Court normally will not issue a writ of mandamus directing the Trial Court to dispose of the pending suit within a time frame. In the present case, issues are yet to be framed in O.S.No.82/2016, and therefore, I do not find any justification to issue a writ of mandamus to the Trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.82/2016 in a time bound manner.

¶53

So far as the first prayer sought, to direct the Trial Court to dispose of IA.nos.2, 4 & 5 filed in O.S.No.82/2016 is concerned, undisputedly IA.no.5 has been already disposed of by the Trial Court during the pendency of this writ petition, and therefore, only IA.nos.2 & 4 are pending consideration. Since

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44824 WP No. 13922 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the said applications are pending since the year 2016, I am of

¶57

the opinion that it is necessary to direct the Trial Court to consider the said applications and dispose of the same on merits, expeditiously, within a time frame. Accordingly, the following order:

¶58

Writ petition is allowed in part. The prayer made by the petitioners to direct the Trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.82/2016 within a time frame, is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of IA.nos.2 & 4 filed in O.S.No.82/2016, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶59

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶60

Smt. Jalajakshi v. Sri. Devaraju R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jalajakshi v. Sri. Devaraju R

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

Akbar Ali Khan Vs Hussain Bi @ Bibijan

Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai

Jacintha Mathew Vs Rosalind Fernandes Alias Rosalind K a

Sri R R Sathyamurthy Vs Sri N v Venkataraju

Sri Srikanth Y Vs State by

Sri M Lakshmeesha Vs Smt. M Gowramma