Disposed¶61

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri.Maregowda

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025WP/35629/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of suit; Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC; liberty to file fresh suit on same cause of action; formal defects in plaint not specified in affidavit; belated withdrawal application after 7-year delay; amendment of pleadings left open; Article 227 writ/certiorari; O.S.No.171/2011, II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi; declaration and permanent injunction over 37½ guntas in Sy.No.20/2, Belagumba Village, Ramanagara District; Karnataka High Court; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; 2025; W.P. No.35629/2019 (GM-CPC); NC: 2025:KHC:27488.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed of by upholding the trial Court's order dated 21.06.2019 rejecting I.A.No.VII, with no orders as to costs. ¶61

Sri. Narasimhaiah Vs Sri.Maregowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was disposed of by upholding the trial Court's order dated 21.06.2019 rejecting I.A.No.VII, with no orders as to costs.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioners' application (I.A.No.VII) under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.171/2011 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

¶40

Court's answer

The affidavit supporting the withdrawal application did not indicate what the formal defects in the suit were; in the absence of any mention/specification of the formal defects, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Taking note that the suit was filed in 2011 and the withdrawal application was filed after a delay of 7 years, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application.

¶55

Key takeaways

If the petitioners intend to cure the defects, it is always open to them to file an application for amendment in accordance with law.obiter¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), W.P. No.35629/2019 (GM-CPC), decided 22.07.2025 — Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari against rejection of I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.171/2011 (II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi), whereby the trial Court refused the plaintiffs' application under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Earlier, an order dated 28.05.2018 had permitted withdrawal without liberty and was recalled on I.A.No.VIII by order dated 21.06.2019, after which the fresh withdrawal application was rejected. Held: (i) the affidavit supporting the withdrawal application did not specify the alleged formal defects in the suit, and (ii) the application came seven years after the 2011 suit; the trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting withdrawal. The petitioners remain free to cure the defects by an application for amendment in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of by upholding the trial Court's order; no costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.35629/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶10

SRI. GOPAL .M S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.28, GOKULA NILAYA IST MAIN, 10TH CROSS KOTTIGEPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091

¶11

SRI. CHANDRAIAH .M S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.28, GOKULA NILAYA IST MAIN, 10TH CROSS KOTTIGEPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091.

¶12

SRI. RAMANNA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT BELAGUMBA, KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.

¶13

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT ANNEKARANAHALLI

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶15

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST-562120.

¶18

SMT. BHAGYAMMA @ SOWBHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.56, RANGANATHAPURA MADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079.

¶19

SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.56, RANGANATHAPURA MADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SMT. SREEVIDHYA, ADV., FOR SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADV.,)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. MAREGOWDA S/O LATE MUDALAGIRAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BELAGUMBA, KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST-562120.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SMT. VASUNDARA T.P. ADV., FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV.,)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.21.6.2019 PASSED ON I.A. NO.7 IN O.S.NO.171/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI VIDE ANNEXURE-J & ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶34

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.171/2011 on the file of the Second Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi vide Annexure-J."

¶35

Smt.Sreevidhya, learning counsel appearing on

¶36

behalf of Sri.T.N.Viswanatha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent filed detailed written statement denying the assertion of the plaint. On noticing the formal defects in the plaint, the petitioners filed an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It is further submitted that the trial Court partly allowed the said application on 28.05.2018 without granting any liberty. Hence, the petitioners filed IA.No.8 seeking to recall the order dated 28.05.2018. The trial Court allowed the said application and thereafter,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

considered the application in IA.No.7 filed by the petitioners for withdrawal of the same. However, the same came to be rejected without assigning any reasons. It is also contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court in paragraph No.9 is that the present application is not maintainable as it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the other side which cannot be compensated in any manner. It is submitted that the petitioners intended to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and the suit is within the period of limitation. Hence, no prejudice or injustice would cause to the other side by allowing the petitioners to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.

¶41

Per contra, Smt.Vasundara T.P., learned

¶42

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the application filed by the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit is at a belated stage as the trial in the suit has already

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

commenced. It is further submitted that to overcome the stand of the defendant, the petitioners has made an attempt to withdraw the suit which cannot be allowed to do so. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶47

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶48

The petitioners/plaintiffs has filed a suit in OS.No.171/2011 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Magadi for a relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and entitled to half share i.e., 37½ guntas of land in Sy.No.20/2 of Belagumba Village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk now Ramanagara District and other reliefs. The respondent denied the assertion of the plaint in the written statement. The records indicate that the petitioners filed an application in IA.No.VII under Order

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 28.05.2018. The order of the trial Court indicates that the application was partly allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit, however, no liberty was granted. Hence, the petitioners filed IA.No.VIII to recall the order dated 28.05.2018. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.06.2019 and thereafter, the trial Court considered the application in IA.No.VII filed by the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit and under the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 rejected the same.

¶52

The application filed by the petitioners under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC is accompanied with an affidavit of petitioner Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The said affidavit indicates that there are some formal defects in the suit and if the suit is

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

proceeded, it would be difficult to adjudicate the case properly. It further indicates that for the effective adjudication of the suit, it is necessary to file a new suit, hence, sought for withdrawal of the suit. In my considered view, the affidavit does not indicate as to what are the formal defects in the suit. In the absence of any mention of specification of formal defects in the affidavit, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2011 and the application is filed after a delay of 7 years and rejected the same. In my considered view, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the said application. However, this Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners if intend to cure those defects by filing an application for amendment, it is always open for the petitioners/plaintiffs to do so in accordance with law. For the aforementioned

¶56

reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:27488 W.P. No.35629/2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The writ petition is disposed of by upholding the order of the trial Court dated 21.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.171/2011 by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi.

¶62

No orders as to costs.

¶63

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶64

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri.Maregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri.Maregowda

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

Sri. Syed Hameed Vs Sri Ramesh

Basavaraju Vs Eshwarappa

Sri Shankaregowda Vs Sri Channegowda

Smt Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

Sri. Ramappa Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Mr. B K Kantha Reddy Vs Nitesh Estates Limited