Smt. Drakshayini. R Vs Sri. B. R. Ashwathnarayanappa

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.34358 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DRAKSHAYINI. R W/O. LATE PRANESH G, D/O. LATE B. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 227, 1 A MAIN ROAD, DWARAKANAGAR, CHIKKABANAVARA, HESARAGATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560090.

¶9

SRI. KESHAVMURTHY K., S/O. LATE C. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT. NO.2/2, LAKSHMI NIVASA, 23^RD CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, KR PURAM, BANGALORE- 560036

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. NAGARATHNA K., S/O. LATE C. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT. NO.2/2, SHIVAKRUPA, 23RD CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, K.R PURAM, BANGALORE-560036

¶12

SMT. GAJALAKSHMI K., D/O. LATE C. KRISHNAPPA, W/O. MARUTHI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 43/53, 15TH CROSS, BEHIND H.P. PETROL BUNK, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560078

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. B. R. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 8, BEHIND SAI LEELA HOTEL, NEAR SRI ACADEMY, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560064

¶19

SMT. LEELA LINGANNA, W/O. H.T. LINGANNA D/O LATE B RAMALAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. 10TH CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, TUMAKURU-572103,

¶20

SRI. R. PRAJWAL, S/O. LATE K.S. RAJENDRA, (GRANDSON OF LATE. RANJANA @RADHAMMA) AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT. THYAMAGONDLU VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562132

¶21

SRI. SHANKARAPPA R, S/O. LATE B. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT, ONTIMANE (FORM HOUSE), HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, NEAR HATHKUNTAPPA TEMPLE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204

¶22

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE SATHYANARAYANA B.R, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. ONTIMANE (FORM HOUSE), HULIKUNTE VILLAGE,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

NEAR HATHKUNTAPPA TEMPLE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204.

¶26

SMT. BHAVYA, D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA B.R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT. ONTIMANE (FORM HOUSE), HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, NEAR HATHKUNTAPPA TEMPLE, DODDABELAVANGA LA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204.

¶27

SRI. R. RAMESH, S/O. LATE B. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT. MATHA PITHA NILAYA NEAR PARK AND GANESHA TEMPLE, 2ND CROSS, SRI NAGARA, KYATHSANDRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572104.

¶28

SRI. MANJUNATH K, S/O. LATE C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. NO.2/2, LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 23RD CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, K.R PURAM, BENGALURU-560036

¶29

SLO OFFICE -2 (BMICP), KIADB, NO. 14/3, C.F.C BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶30

SRI. YATHINDRA H.A., S/O. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. NO.8, SRI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND HOTEL SAI LEELA, SRINIVASA LAYOUT, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU -560 064

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA IN OS NO. 1106/2024 TO DISPOSE THE IA NO.2/2024 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC DATED 21/09/2024, WITHIN TWO WEEKS HEREOF (VIDE. ANNEXURE-D)

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶40

The prayer sought in this petition is as under:

¶41

a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura in OS.No.1106/2024 to dispose the IA.No.2/2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC dated 21.09.2024, within two weeks hereof (vide., Annexure-D) and

¶42

b) Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶43

This Court does not find the need or necessity

¶44

to issue notice to respondents/defendants for the reason

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

that the prayer sought is limited to the extent of issuance of direction to the trial Court to dispose of IA.No.2/2024 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC.

¶48

The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Along with the plaint, an application- IA No.2 came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to restrain defendant No.9 in the suit from disbursing the compensation amount with respect to the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 8 pending disposal of the suit.

¶49

Despite the said IA having been filed along with the plaint on 21.09.2024, no orders are passed on the said application, even as on date, more than a year has passed

¶50

since the filing of the suit and the application. The trial Court has merely adjourned the matter time and again.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court to issue a direction to the learned trial judge to dispose of the application in an expeditious and timebound manner, failing which the very purpose of filing the application will get frustrated if the amount is released in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 8.

¶55

Defendant No.1 has appeared and filed a statement. Others have not filed the statement. A few of them are placed ex-parte including defendant No. 9. Be that as it may, once an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiffs, more so along with the plaint, it becomes the obligation of the trial Court to pass an order for either the grant or rejection of an ad- interim ex-parte injunction. If the same is not done and in the meanwhile defendants make their representation, the trial Court could

¶56

hear both parties and pass suitable orders on this application before further proceeding, which has not been done in the present case. It has been more than a year

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

since any order was passed on the said application. As per

¶60

the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A read with Section 151 of CPC, the application filed requires to be considered within a period of 30 days, which is not done admittedly in the present case on hand.

¶61

The trial Court has lost sight of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The relief sought will be relevant, as the plaintiffs are seeking relief against defendant No.9 from disbursing the compensation amount in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 8. If the said amount is disbursed, the very IA would get frustrated and would be of no consequence, and the main relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit is one for release of the amount in favour of them. Therefore, it is an obligation cast upon the trial Court to dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in a time bound manner though already it is late.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

In view of the above and for non-consideration

¶65

of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and having not considered the several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as to how to deal with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court shall adhere to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha -vsMunicipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 and in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow V/s State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V/s Smt. Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 and proceed to pass orders on the application expeditiously. It becomes expedient and appropriate for

¶66

this Court to direct the trial Court to dispose of the application in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:49068 WP No. 34358 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The petition is allowed.

¶71

The Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,

¶72

Doddaballapura, is directed to dispose of IA No. 2 filed

¶73

under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order in OS No. 1106 /2024.

¶74

It is made clear that in the meanwhile the defendant No.9/respondent No.9 shall refrain from disbursing the amount to either defendant Nos. 1 to 8 or any third party till the application is decided in accordance with law, after hearing the other contesting defendants, before the trial Court.

¶75

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶76

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Drakshayini. R v. Sri. B. R. Ashwathnarayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Drakshayini. R v. Sri. B. R. Ashwathnarayanappa

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

K Immanna Vs D Ravalappa

M/S. Srinivasa Trust Vs D. a. Thejeshwari

Smt Porkodi Vs M/S Royaloak Infrastructure LLP

Smt. Naseem Begum Vs Sri. Syed Khader

Sri v a Arogyaswamy Alias Arun Vs M/S Sycon Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Ramachandra R Vs K H Parvathi Devi