Dismissed¶48

Dr P Vidhyasagar Arya v. M/S Ramky Estates and Farms Limited

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025WP/19457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No. 19457 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 05.08.2025 (Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga). Dr. P. Vidhyasagar Arya (party-in-person) v. M/s Ramky Estates and Farms Ltd., A.V. Bhaskar Reddy, M. Nandakishore and Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Challenge to K-REAT Appeal No. 04/2023 order dated 23.04.2025 dismissing IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of memorandum of appeal) with Rs.5,000 cost; earlier IA.No.III dismissed 07.01.2025 and not challenged; repeat amendment application not maintainable; no substantial question of law under Section 58 RERA Act 2016; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the table comparing the two applications, the Court found that some amendments sought in IA.No.V were sought in respect of the very same amendments already made in IA.No.III. ¶42

Dr P Vidhyasagar Arya Vs M/S Ramky Estates and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 19457 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DR. P. VIDHYASAGAR ARYA, AGED 50 YEARS, C4-003, RAMKY ONE NORTH, AVALAHALLI, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 119.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DR.P. VIDHYASAGAR ARYA, PETITIONERPARTY-IN- PERSON)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS LIMITED NO. 25-30, RAMKY HOUSE, 2^ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043. REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 6-3-1089/G/10 & 11, GULMOHAR AVENUE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 082.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI.M.NANDA KISHORE.

¶19

SRI. A.V. BHASKAR REDDY PROJECT-IN-CHARGE/ AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M/S RAMKY ESTATES FARMS LIMITED NO. 25-30, RAMKY HOUSE, 2^ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURA-560 043. REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 6-3-1089/G/10AND11, GULMOHAR AVENUE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 560 082.

¶20

SRI. M. NANDAKISHORE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMKY ESTATES FARMS LIMITED NO. 25-30, RAMKY HOUSE, 2^ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURA-560 043. REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 6-3-1089/G/10 & 11, GULMOHAR AVENUE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 560 043.

¶21

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2^ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3^RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SECTION 96 OF THE CPC AND ORDER 43 RULE1R OF CPC, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO RESPONDENT No.4 (HON'BLE TRIBUNAL) TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.04.2025 ON K-REAT APPEAL No. 4/2023 AND CMP/UR/210325/0007838 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4, IN K-RERA APPEAL No. 04/2023, DISMISSING IA-5 WITH A COST OF Rs. 5000/- VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶29

Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.

¶30

The instant petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the respondent No.4 i.e., Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, in Appeal No.04/2023.

¶31

However, perusal of the impugned order reflects

¶32

that it is passed by Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 04/2023. By

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

means of the impugned order, IA.No.V filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the memorandum of appeal, was dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶37

A perusal of the impugned order reflects that, before the Appellate Tribunal, earlier an application IA.No.III was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment. It has been noted in the impugned order that IA.No.III came to be dismissed on 07.01.2025, holding that the proposed amendment is neither necessary nor relevant to decide the point in controversy in the appeal. It was also noted that the order of 07.01.2025 was never challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.

¶38

It is noted in the impugned order that the amendment as sought in both IA.Nos.III and V, are the same. The Tribunal observed that, in case if party was not satisfied with the order (of 07.01.2025) passed by the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Tribunal, the remedy lay elsewhere. Filing of another application seeking the very same relief was not maintainable.

¶42

The petitioner who appears in-person has referred to a Table, that appears at page No.13 of the petition, by means of which, he has sought to demonstrate the difference in the prayers made in IA.No.III and IA.No.V. It is submitted that the prayers made in IA.No.V, that are marked in bold, are different from the prayers made in IA.No.III. However, on perusal of the table, we find that some amendments have been sought to be made in the very same amendments that were made in IA.No.III by means of IA.No.V. The order passed on IA.No.III by the Appellate Tribunal has become final and has not been challenged.

¶43

In any view of the matter, we do not see, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, that any question of law, much less a substantial question of law

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:30330-DB WP No. 19457 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

has arisen, that would make the instant petition maintainable under the provisions of Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

¶48

For the reasons aforesaid, the Petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶51

bk/ : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Dr P Vidhyasagar Arya v. M/S Ramky Estates and Farms Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr P Vidhyasagar Arya v. M/S Ramky Estates and Farms Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Charan Puthran Vs Smt. Niveditha

Shiva Kumar N.V. Vs Smt.Adhiti

Smt. Rini Dutta, Vs the Secretary

Sri Dinesh Kumar Vs Mr Joy Jeevan Praka Veigas

Mrs Sonya Sequiera Vs Mr Ronold Rodrigues

The United India Insurance Vs the Coffee Board, Bangalore