Allowed¶70

Mr.B.C Arun Kumar v. Sri.B.K. Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025WP/1457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; clubbing/transfer of suits; consent transfer; O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016, 1484/2017; Misc.No.640/2024 dismissed; partition suit versus permanent injunction suits; City Civil Court Bengaluru CCH-38; Mayo Hall Unit lift facility; aged litigant accessibility; expeditious disposal direction; Karnataka High Court; WP No. 1457 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Pradeep Singh Yerur J.; order dated 17.09.2024 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.09.2024 in Misc.No.640/2024 set aside; O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016 and 1484/2017 transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38); CCH-38 directed to decide the partition suit of the year 2015 expeditiously with reasonable opportunity to all parties. ¶70

Mr.B.C Arun Kumar Vs Sri.B.K. Chandrashekar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Misc.No.640/2024 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the petition for transfer/clubbing of the four suits, should be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Misc.No.640/2024 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

All the matters, namely O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016 and 1484/2017, are transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38), where the original suit is pending, as learned counsel for the parties agreed in unison to such transfer.

¶75

Key takeaways

In view of the fact that the partition suit is of the year 2015, the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38) shall decide the matter expeditiously by providing reasonable opportunity to all the parties.ratio¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India allowed. The High Court set aside the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Misc.No.640/2024, by which the petitioners' application for transfer/clubbing of four pending suits (O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016 and 1484/2017) had been dismissed on the ground that the original suit was for partition while the others were for permanent injunction. With counsel for both sides agreeing in unison, and at the instance of respondent No.1 (aged 77 years) who found the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit inaccessible for want of a lift, all four matters were transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38), where the original suit is pending. The transferee Court was directed to decide the partition suit of the year 2015 expeditiously after providing reasonable opportunity to all parties.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1457 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.B.C.ARUN KUMAR S/O. B. K. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶9

MRS. P. JYOTHI W/O. B. C. ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.44, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH D MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT KALYANNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALSO AT: NO.2C 14^TH CROSS 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK SECTOR 6 HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶13

MRS. LEELAVATHY W/O. LATE MR. PARATHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶14

MR. CHANDAN S/O. LATE MR. PARATHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MR. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. RESIDING AT NO.

¶19

PETITIONERS NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.44, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH D MAIN 2^ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT KALYANNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI SHARAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE A. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. T. P. HEMALATHA W/O. B. K. CHANDRASEKHAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶25

SRI B. C. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. B. K. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶26

SRI B. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O. B. K. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶27

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT: NO.614 14^TH CROSS, 33^RD MAIN J.P.NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NOW AT: NO.294 8^TH MAIN 4^TH PHASE J. P. NAGAR DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶31

M/S. VERIETY TRADERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.31, GROUND FLOOR NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE MAMULPET BENGALURU - 560 053 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI B. K. CHANDRASHEKAR.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE -A BEING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 17.09.2024 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, IN MISC.NO.640/2024 AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned

¶42

counsel for respondents.

¶43

This petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Misc.No.640/2024 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶44

The other matters are pending before the respective Courts, namely O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016 and 1484/2017 inter se between

¶45

some of the parties and they are pending before different Courts within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru.

¶46

The petitioners have filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc.No.640/2024 seeking to transfer the above mentioned suits to one particular Court to be tried together. The said miscellaneous petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the original suit in

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

O.S.No.25238/2015 is filed for partition and other suits

¶50

are filed for permanent injunction. Therefore, the findings recorded in any other suits would only be in relation to actual possession of the concerned parties and it would not decide the right, title or interest of the parties therein. On such ground, the petition for transfer came to be dismissed.

¶51

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that since most of the suits are between the same parties, and the matters are transferred to one particular Court, it would facilitate expeditious disposal and also would curtail the time of the Court and the parties and also would cause less inconvenience to the parties to the proceedings as well as to the learned counsels.

¶52

5.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel for

¶53

petitioners that since the partition suit is of the year 2015, it may be possible for the Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if they are transferred to one particular

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Court and tried together. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition and direction for transfer of all the matters to one particular Court.

¶58

Per contra , Sri S.V.Bhat, learned counsel for respondents does not have much objection to transfer the matters to one particular Court and instead of transferring the matter to the City Civil Court at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, the matter could be transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, as respondent No.1 is aged 77 years and there is no lift facility in the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, which would be handicapped for him to climb the stairs.

¶59

6.1. Learned counsel for respondents further

¶60

contended that he does not have any objections to all these matters being transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Learned counsel for petitioners also does not have

¶65

any objections if the matters transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.

¶66

Accordingly, there is nothing much left to be considered in the case, as learned counsel for the parties have agreed in unison to all the matters to be transferred to one particular Court. Learned counsels together agree that all the matters could be transferred to City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38), where the original suit in O.S.No.1478/2017 is pending.

¶67

In view of the said submission made by the

¶68

learned counsel for parties, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i. This petition is allowed ;

¶71

ii. The impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Misc.No.640/2024 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby setaside and all the matters, namely, O.S.Nos.25238/2015, 25370/2015, 5562/2016

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:54264 WP No. 1457 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

and 1484/2017 are hereby transferred to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38);

¶76

iii. In view of the fact that the partition suit is of the year 2015, the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH-38) shall decide the matter expeditiously by providing reasonable opportunity to all the parties.

¶77

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶78

CPN

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Mr.B.C Arun Kumar v. Sri.B.K. Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.B.C Arun Kumar v. Sri.B.K. Chandrashekar

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

Sri Venaktachala Reddy, Vs Sri Rame Gowda

Dr. M C Sudhakar Vs Sri. Veerendara Babu N

Smt. B R Nethravathi Vs Sri B R Ramappa

K Channarayappa Vs Doddabasavaraju

Ms. Pushpa. U. B. Vs Mr. a. C. Prabhu Rajshekar

S Girija Vs Smt. Shakunthala