Sri Ningappa Vs Smt Gowramma

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA TO DISPOSE OF THE FDP NO. 8/2023 AT ANNEXURE-B IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AS OBSERVED BY THIS COURT IN PARA NO.18 OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA NO. 40/2007 AT ANNX-A.

¶37

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

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶40

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a

¶41

direction to the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna to dispose of the FDP No.8/2023 in a time bound manner as observed by this Court in paragraph-18 of the judgment in RSA No.40/2017.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:40076 WP No. 28942 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

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 learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna to dispose of FDP No.8/2023 expeditiously in a time bound manner.

¶46

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner

¶47

that O.S. No.58/1989 came to be filed for partition and separate possession. After several rounds of litigation, the matter finally reached this Court in RSA No.40/2007. Unfortunately during the course of the appeal, original plaintiff No.1 – Basamma died and Smt. Shivamma being the daughter

¶48

of late Basamma continued to prosecute the said second appeal. This Court vide judgment dated 7.11.2022 set aside the judgment & decree passed by the first appellate Court in R.A. No.4/1996 and restored the judgment & decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.58/1989 holding that the appellant/Shivamma is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. Thereafter, petitioners preferred FDP No.8/2023 before the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna.

¶49

Despite granting several adjournments, respondents did not file

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40076 WP No. 28942 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

objections to the FDP and the objections were taken as not filed. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application order under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of the Court Commissioner for measurement and demarcation of half share in the suit schedule property.

¶53

This being the state of affairs, on 31.5.2024 an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by one L.R. Mahadevappa claiming to be the son of Smt. Ningamma, who is the sister of Hanumanthappa and Basappa. This application was opposed by the petitioners. Thereafter by an order dated 3.4.2024, the trial Court directed enquiry on the impleading application and the matter was adjourned.

¶54

The respondents have challenged the judgment passed in RSA No.40/2007 before the Supreme Court in SLP (civil) Diary No.17712/2023 and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 4.9.2023. Despite the dismissal of SLP, the respondents are making misleading statement before the trial Court with regard to pendency of SLP.

¶55

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that despite succeeding in the original suit, petitioners are unable to

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40076 WP No. 28942 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

enjoy the fruits of the decree as the respondents are deliberately making hectic efforts to prolong and protract the proceedings. More than 35 years have passed from the date of institution of the suit. It is unfortunate that the original plaintiff no.1 – Basamma during her life time though succeeded in the suit, was unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree and she is not even aware of outcome of the case till her last breath. This is the sad state of affairs due to protraction of proceedings and delay in conclusion of trial. Petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna to dispose of FDP proceedings expeditiously in a time bound manner.

¶59

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna to dispose of FDP No.8/2023 within a specific time frame as FDP Court cannot prolong and protract proceedings at the instance of the respondents, which would be travesty of justice.

¶60

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:40076 WP No. 28942 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

O R D E R

¶65

i) The petition is allowed .

¶66

ii) The Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Srirangapatna is directed to dispose of FDP No.8/2023 in a time bound manner within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶67

iii) Learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC is at liberty to impose exemplary costs on either side for unnecessary adjournments.

¶68

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶69

GSS

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri Ningappa v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ningappa v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Samarjit B Vs M/S Zion Saloons (South)

Sri M Srinivasan Vs Sri B N Manjunath

Sri Ravi Kumar G R Vs Smt. Deepa N

Sri. Muniyappa Reddy Vs Smt. M. Subbamma

Sri Nanjaiah Alias Nanjundappa Vs Sri B R Jagadish

Smt Prathima Reddy Vs Tumukur Merchants Credit Co. Operative Ltd.