Allowed¶44

Smt. Sharadamma v. Sri. Janardhana B K

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025WP/15785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; expeditious disposal of suit; direction to trial court; O.S.No.298/2019; Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Kunigal; repeated adjournments; cross-examination of PW-1 adjourned eight to ten times; exemplary costs for unnecessary adjournments; writ of mandamus; GM-CPC; Karnataka High Court 2025; Pradeep Singh Yerur J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal to dispose of O.S.No.298/2019 expeditiously, with liberty to impose exemplary cost on either parties for unnecessary adjournments and both parties to cooperate; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶44

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Sri. Janardhana B K — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus or direction should issue to the trial Court (Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal) to dispose of O.S.No.298/2019 on merits without further delay.

¶30

Court's answer

No notice to the respondents is required, as no relief is sought against them and no adverse order is passed against them.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Repeated adjournments taken by the respondents-defendants furnish a valid ground to consider the case of the petitioner-plaintiff for expeditious disposal, the suit being of the year 2019 with more than five years having lapsed.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.298/2019 expeditiously.ratio¶49
The trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either parties for unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶51
Both parties shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the suit.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.298/2019 (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal), a suit of the year 2019 in which the plaintiff is in possession of the property, defendant No.2 was initially ex parte, and further cross-examination of PW-1 stood adjourned nearly eight to ten times, with the respondents-defendants protracting the proceedings. Held: more than five years having lapsed and repeated adjournments having been taken, there is a valid ground for expeditious disposal; petition allowed and the trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.298/2019 expeditiously, with liberty to impose exemplary cost on either parties for unnecessary adjournments; both parties to cooperate; no notice to respondents required as no relief or adverse order against them; no opinion expressed on merits (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44546 WP No. 15785 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 15785 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. DODDAHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT VANIGERE VILLAGE BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132. REP. BY GPA HOLDER:

¶9

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI GOPALARAJU V.D., S/O. DODDAHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT VANIGERE VILLAGE BHAKTHARAHALLI POST KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶12

(BY SMT. SUMA T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

SRI JANARDHANA B. K., S/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶16

SMT. HONNAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44546 WP No. 15785 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 ARE R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT I.E., HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUNIGAL TO DISPOSE/PASS FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.298/2019 ON MERITS WITHOUT MAKING FURTHER DELAY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff.

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

¶28

seeking for the following relief:

¶29

" WHEREFORE , the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-

¶30

a) Issue Writ of Mandamus to or any other appropriate Writ or direction, directing the trial Court i.e., Hon'ble Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal to dispose/pass final order/judgment in OS.No.298/2019 on merits without making further delay

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44546 WP No. 15785 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

b) Pass such other orders which this Honb'e court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondents, as no relief is sought against them and so also no adverse order is passed against them. The only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal to dispose of the suit in O.S. No.298/2019 expeditiously.

¶35

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that suit is of the year 2019 and the petitioner-plaintiff is in possession of the property. Initially, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 was placed ex

¶36

parte . However, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed an application for production of documents, which was allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiff was crossexamined partly in the year 2021 and thereafter, it was posted for further cross-examination of PW-1 and the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44546 WP No. 15785 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

same was adjourned for nearly eight to ten times. The

¶40

respondents-defendants have been protracting and prolonging the proceedings for one or other reason. Hence, the present petition is filed by the plaintiffpetitioner for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶41

I have perused the contents of the writ petition and the adjournments taken by the respondentsdefendants and also the time that has lapsed from the appearance of the respondents-defendants from the stage of cross-examination of PW.1. It appears that there are repeated adjournments that are taken and hence, there is a valid ground to consider the case of the petitionerplaintiff for expeditious disposal, as the suit is of the year 2019 and more than five years have lapsed.

¶42