Sri Narayanappa v. Sri Narayanappa

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025WP/35882/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition writ under Article 227 (GM-CPC) by plaintiff in decade-old suit O.S.No.41/2014 before IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural; Karnataka High Court (Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, 02-12-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:50191) allowed the petition and directed time-bound disposal of the suit within six months of receipt of the order; notice to nine defendants dispensed with (no relief or adverse order sought against them); no opinion expressed on merits; counsel: M.D. Raghunath with Manjunatha S.V.; keywords: speedy trial, delay by defendants, mandamus to trial court, time-bound direction, pendency of 2014 suit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.41/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Sri Narayanappa Vs Sri Narayanappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.41/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus / direction to the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural to dispose of O.S.No.41/2014 within six months. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

Since the suit is of the year 2014 and remains pending before the trial Court, the Court was inclined to direct the trial Court to expedite the matter in accordance with law.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

Notice to the respondents-defendants was not required, as no relief was sought against them and no adverse order was passed against them.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

A direction was issued to the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.41/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶55
The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.obiter¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU — Writ Petition (GM-CPC) No. 35882 of 2025, decided 02-12-2025 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur). Filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff, whose suit O.S.No.41/2014 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural since 2014 had not been disposed of, the petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the trial Court to conclude the suit within six months. Notice to the nine respondents-defendants was dispensed with, as no relief was sought against them and no adverse order was passed against them. The petition was ALLOWED: the trial Court was directed to dispose of O.S.No.41/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with the Court expressly stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50191 WP No. 35882 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 35882 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NARAYANAPPA

¶9

S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) R/AT GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE HUSKUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI MANJUNATHA S.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NAYANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE

¶15

MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU -560 030.

¶16

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶17

SMT. RENUKA D/O. LATE SRI NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50191 WP No. 35882 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT HALE PLAYA DINNAHALLI POST MASTI HOBLI, MALUR - 563 139.

¶21

SMT. RAMAVATHI W/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. SAVITHA D/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. SUMITHRA D/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶24

SRI RAVI S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NAYANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU -560 030.

¶25

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE SRI BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. KANTHAMMA D/O. LATE SRI BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENT NO.8 AND 9 ARE R/AT GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 560 099.

¶28

&RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:50191 WP No. 35882 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

MANDAMUS TO IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL IN O.S.NO.41/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT WITHIN SIX.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff.

¶38

This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

¶39

seeking following relief:

¶40

"a. Issue a Writ of mandamus to the IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL in O.S No.41/2014 as per ANNEXURE-A to dispose of the suit within six months.

¶41

b. Pass any other Writ, Order, direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the Case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶42

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants, as no relief is sought against them and so also no adverse order is

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50191 WP No. 35882 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

passed against them. The only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.41/2014 within a period of six months.

¶46

Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff contended that the trial Court has not yet disposed of the suit and also the respondents-defendants are deliberately prolonging and protracting the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014 pending before the trial Court, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to expedite the matter in accordance with law.

¶48