Smt.Padmaja S Hegde v. Smt.Prathima S.Shetty

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/33955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC), Karnataka HC, 18.11.2025 — direction for time-bound disposal of pending first appeal R.A. No.3/2018 before Additional District Judge, Udupi (Kundapura); judicial delay after conclusion of arguments (appellant argued 28.09.2020 and 04.08.2022; respondents heard 24.08.2022; no judgment since August 2022); 3-month outer limit imposed; fast-track hearing of remaining arguments; suit of 2004, appeal of 2018; expedite disposal of old first appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Additional District Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) to dispose of Appeal RA.No.3/2018 within 3 months from receipt of copy of the order, providing the respondents an opportunity within that period to address their arguments on a fast track method basis. ¶¶46

Smt.Padmaja S Hegde Vs Smt.Prathima S.Shetty — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ/order/direction should be issued to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapur), Kundapura to dispose of the first appeal in R.A. No. 3/2018 forthwith or within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Additional District Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) to dispose of the Appeal RA.No.3/2018 within a time bound manner, not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties have not adduced evidence and only arguments remain, the first appellate Court is required and obligated to hear the arguments of the respondents, if any, in the said appeal and pass judgment in a time bound manner.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Notice to the respondents (plaintiffs and co-defendants before the first appellate Court in RA No.3/2018) was not found necessary, as the petition merely seeks a direction to expedite the matter.obiter¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. — W.P. No. 33955 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 18.11.2025 — Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant No.1, the appellant in first appeal R.A. No.3/2018 (an appeal of 2018 arising from a suit of 2004) before the Additional District Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), seeking a writ of mandamus for expeditious disposal. The appellant had argued the appeal twice (28.09.2020 and 04.08.2022, the latter after a change of presiding officer), respondents' arguments were heard on 24.08.2022, yet no judgment had been passed since August 2022 although no evidence remained to be recorded. Held: petition allowed; the first appellate Court directed to dispose of the appeal within 3 months from receipt of copy of the order, giving the respondents a fast-track opportunity to address their remaining arguments.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:47344 WP No. 33955 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33955 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.PADMAJA S HEGDE W/O SHANKARA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS KRISHNA KRIPA OPP AMMANI RAMANNA SHETTY HALL VOLAKADU UDUPI TOWN DISTRICT UDUPI- 576101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT.PRATHIMA S.SHETTY D/O LATE K ANTHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/A C15 B OPP OJAS2, MIT STAFF QUARTERS MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT-576119

¶15

SMT POORNIMA G SHERVEGAR

¶16

D/O LATE K ANTHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS BELENJE HOUSE BELANJE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT- 578112

¶17

SMT ANURADHA S SHETTY D/O LATE K ANTHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A AKASH NAVAGIRINAGAR POST KULAI HOSABETTU MANGALORE D K 574227

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47344 WP No. 33955 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI VENUGOPAL SHETTY S/O LASTE K ANTHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO. 112 2ND FLOOR ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET YADIYUR KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE -560082

¶21

SRI GANESH SHETTY S/O LATE K ANTHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO. 274 CAUVERY 4TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK 2ND STAGE RAJMAHAL VILAS BANGALORE -560094

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPUR), KUNDAPURA TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN R.A. NO. 3/2018 (ANNEXURE-C) FORTHWITH OR WITHIN SUCH TIME FRAME AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

The prayer sought in the present petition is as

¶29

under:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47344 WP No. 33955 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the ADDL District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapur), Kundapura to dispose of the Appeal in R.A.No.3/2018 (ANNEXURE - C) forthwith or within such time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;

¶33

b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents who are plaintiffs and co-defendants before the first appellate Court in RA No.3/2018, as this petition is filed for a direction to the learned trial Court Judge to expedite the matter.

¶35

The present petition is filed by defendant No.1 who is the appellant before the first appellate Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he had argued the matter as appellant in the first appeal on 28.09.2020 and thereafter the matter was posted for

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47344 WP No. 33955 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

judgment on 14.10.2020. Thereafter, there was a change of the presiding officer before the first appellate Court. Pursuant to which the petitioner further argued the matter before the appellate Court on 04.08.2022. Thereafter, respondents' arguments were heard on 24.08.2022 and again the matter was posted for further arguments and till date neither arguments have been addressed nor is the judgment passed.

¶39

Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the learned judge of the first appellate court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. In view of the fact that the petitioner already argued the matter twice and now for the second time he has argued, and since August 2022 there has been no outcome in the first appeal which does not require any evidence as the parties have not adduced evidence. It is only for arguments to be completed. The first appellate Court is required and obligated to hear the arguments of the respondents, if any, in the said appeal and pass judgment

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47344 WP No. 33955 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

in a time bound manner. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

A direction is issued to the Additional District

¶46

Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) to dispose of the Appeal RA.No.3/2018 within a time bound manner not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶47

It is needless to mention that the first appellate court shall provide opportunity within this period to the respondents to address their arguments on a fast track method basis as the first appeal is of the year 2018 and the suit is of the year 2004.

¶48

4. Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt.Padmaja S Hegde v. Smt.Prathima S.Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Padmaja S Hegde v. Smt.Prathima S.Shetty

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

Umakka Vs Thippamma

Basavamurthy Madara Channaiah Swamigalu Vs G N Murali Krishna

Smt K Accamma Alias Vidya Vs Sri Kavadichanda Bopanna

Sri H K Shivanna Vs Smt. Puttananjamma

Smt.Susheelamma Vs Sri.C. Nagaraju

H Jayamma Vs T Vijaya