Disposed¶¶53

Sri Ramanjinappa v. Smt S Muniyamma

Constitution of India – Article 227

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025WP/25706/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (NC: 2025:KHC:41433), Pradeep Singh Yerur, J., 17.10.2025, WP No. 25706 of 2025 (GM-CPC): speedy disposal direction under Article 227 for O.S.No.152/2012, Devanahalli court; 2012 partition suit pending 13+ years; non-compliance with earlier order dated 07.02.2024 in W.P.No.3307/2024; suit to be decided within one year; no notice to respondents; no merits opinion.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District to dispose of O.S.No.152/2012 expeditiously, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter. ¶¶53

Sri Ramanjinappa Vs Smt S Muniyamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue under Article 227 to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli to dispose of O.S.No.152/2012, a suit of the year 2012 pending for more than thirteen years without outcome. +1 more

¶¶49

Court's answer

Considering that the suit is of the year 2012 and the parties have been languishing in court for more than thirteen years, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing directions for expeditious disposal.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

A direction was issued to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.152/2012 expeditiously, and in any event not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶60

Key takeaways

It was expressly made clear that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; the merits of the suit were left open.obiter¶¶63
The Court declined to issue notice to the respondents because no adverse orders were passed against them and no relief was sought against them; the only relief sought was expeditious disposal of the suit.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Writ petition by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.152/2012 (partition suit of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli) seeking a direction for speedy disposal of the suit — Suit pending for more than thirteen years and at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff; earlier order dated 07.02.2024 in W.P.No.3307/2024 directing expeditious disposal not adhered to — Held: petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.152/2012 expeditiously and not later than one year from receipt of a copy of the order — Notice to respondents dispensed with as no adverse orders or relief sought against them — No opinion expressed on the merits of the suit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41433 WP No. 25706 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 25706 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMANJINAPPA, S/O RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶9

SRI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, YALIYUR POST, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI ONKARAPPA N.D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. S. MUNIYAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY SOLE L.R.

¶17

SRI RAMESH, S/O. LATE SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. DEVISHETTIHALI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 577 228.

¶18

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, D/O. RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH,

¶19

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41433 WP No. 25706 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT. MANJAMMA, S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. ANASUYAMMA, D/O. RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, D/O. RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. BACHAMMA, D/O. RAMAIAH @ CHIKKA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶26

SRI MADHU, S/O. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. SUDHA, D/O. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶28

R2 TO R8 ARE RESIDENTS OF THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, YALIYUR POST, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT ON ITS MERITS AS PRAYED IN THE PLAINT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A OF THIS WRIT PETITION TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT AT THE EARLIEST PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DSITRICT IN O.S.NO.152/2012 AND ETC.,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41433 WP No. 25706 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶36

This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking direction for speedy disposal, directing I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.152/2012 expeditiously.

¶37

This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents, as no adverse orders are passed against the respondents and no relief is sought against the respondents. The only relief sought by the petitionersdefendant Nos.1 and 2 in this case is for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶38

The petitioners are none other than defendant

¶39

Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.152/2012. The suit came to be filed

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41433 WP No. 25706 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

by respondent No.1-plaintiff for partition, separate

¶43

possession and for other consequential relief. Presently, the suit is at the stage of recording of evidence of the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, several applications are filed

¶44

by the plaintiff to protract and prolong the proceedings.

¶45

On the earlier occasion, the very same petitionersdefendant Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court by filing a petition in W.P.No.3307/2024 seeking an expeditious disposal of the suit, in view of unnecessary adjournments and protracting of the proceedings by the plaintiff. The said petition came to be disposed of on 07.02.2024, whereby this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Despite passing the order on 07.02.2024 by this Court, it appears that the suit has not progressed any further and the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent-plaintiff have not seen the

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41433 WP No. 25706 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

light of the day with regard to the culmination of the suit proceedings.

¶49

Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2012. Since more than thirteen years from the date of filing of the suit have passed, the outcome is yet to be reached in the said suit and the trial Court has also not adhered to the directions passed by this Court on the earlier order dated 07.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.3307/2024.

¶50

Under the circumstance, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2012 and the parties are languishing in the Court for more than thirteen years, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing directions.

¶51