Sri. Thirumalappa Vs Sri. Mariyappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Thirumalappa Vs Sri. Mariyappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: impugned order dated 24.06.2016 on I.A.No.4 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) set aside; Trial Court directed to hear the I.A. afresh, fix and intimate a hearing date well in advance, and dispose of the I.A. not later than two months from receipt of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 24.06.2016 dismissing I.A.No.4 (amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) on the ground of non-representation — after the plaintiff side had been taken as heard instead of posting the matter for orders — was erroneous and warrants interference under Article 227. +1 more

Court's answer

Although there were lapses ('latches') on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his application before the Trial Court, in the interest of justice this Court interferes with and sets aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 passed on I.A.No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 24.06.2016 on I.A.No.4 is set aside and the Trial Court shall hear the I.A. afresh.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court shall fix a hearing date, intimate the same to the parties and their counsels well in advance for hearing of the I.A., and co-operate for disposal of the I.A. on the same day, not later than two months from the date of receipt of this Order.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Amendment of plaint — Order VI Rule 17 CPC — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Order dated 24.06.2016 of XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.7682/2014 dismissing I.A.No.4 (plaint amendment seeking declaration of title and possession) on the ground of non-representation, though the plaintiff side had been taken as heard — Held: lapses ('latches') attributable to the petitioner-plaintiff in prosecuting the application notwithstanding, in the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside; Trial Court directed to hear the I.A. afresh, fix a hearing date and intimate parties well in advance, and dispose of the I.A. on the same day not later than two months from receipt of the order — Writ petition disposed of (Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, High Court of Karnataka, 25.09.2025, W.P. No.56919/2018 GM-CPC).

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.56919 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. THIRUMALAPPA S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O. NO. 19-2, SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA A/W SRI. V.CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. MARIYAPPA S/O. SONTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

2 . SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O. SONTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.

2 -

4 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4; R-1, R2(A), R2(B) – ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 IN DISMISSING I.A.NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE “F” FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CPC IN O.S.NO.7682/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 40^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.41) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 24.06.2016 on I.A. No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC passed by of XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru in O.S. No. 7682/2014.

3 -

The Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the

Trial Court and Respondents no.1 to 4 are defendants no.

1 to 4 respectively before the trial court.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The Plaintiff filed the O.S.No.7682/2014 against the Respondents for permanent injunction along with I.A under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 restraining them from putting up a construction on the ‘B’ schedule property.

The First Respondent filed the written statement and plaintiff filed the application under order 6 rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint for declaration to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the ‘B’ schedule property and praying for a direction to the first respondent to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.1 filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 against which Miscellaneous First Appeal was preferred before this court which came to be dismissed by

4 -

way of an order dated 04.03.2015 with an observation that an application has been filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to get suit converted into one for relief and declaration of title and sought for consequential relief of possession. Another observation that was made was if an application was filed under Order 26 rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Court commissioner by the petitioner the same may be considered.

The Petitioner filed I.A.No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint. On 10-02-2016 when the case was called out the plaintiff was called absent and the Plaintiff side taken as heard. The matter was adjourned again. The Trial Court ultimately by an order dated 24.06.2016 dismissed I.A.No.4 on the ground of nonrepresentation. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsels for Respondents no.3 and 4 were present through video conferencing. Despite the service of notices to Respondents No.1, 2(A) and 2(B), they remained absent.

5 -

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend

that the trial Court has failed to appreciate when the plaintiff side has taken as heard the Court ought to have posted the matters for orders. Instead of posting for orders, Trial Court erroneously dismissed the I.A.

It was also contended the Trial Court has committed a serious error by dismissing I.A.No.4 without judicial application of mind, when there is a clear observation and reference made by this Court in M.F.A No. 1401/2015 regarding I.A No.4 filed under Order 6 Rule 17.

It was further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the valuable rights, title and interest of the petitioner regarding the property and it was the duty of the Trial Court to do complete justice when the petitioner has sought for declaration of his title and for possession. It was also contended that the trial Court dismissed the I.A. without even making reference to observation of this Court and therefore, impugned Order warrants the interference of this Court.

6 -

It can be observed from the Order passed by the

trial Court that the Defendant had filed the statement of objections and despite sufficient opportunity was given to plaintiff, plaintiff did not turn up for arguments and ultimately the trial Court has dismissed the I.A.No.4.

On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the material placed on record, and on perusal of the impugned Order of the trial Court, admittedly, there are latches on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the petition filed by him before the trial Court, however, in the interest of justice, this Court intends to interfere and set aside the impugned Order dated 24.06.2016 on I.A. No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC passed by of XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of , with the following directions:

a) The impugned order dated 24.06.2016 on I.A. No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC passed by of XL Additional City

7 -

Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru is set aside and the trial Court shall hear the I.A afresh.

b) It is directed that the trial Court shall fix a hearing date and intimate the same to the parties and their counsels well in advance for hearing of the I.A and to co-operate for disposal of the I.A on the same day, not later than two months from the date of the receipt of this Order.

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

BNV