Disposed¶38

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, v. Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/100249/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedition mandamus declined; request-based expedite of pending civil suit. Keywords: writ of mandamus; fixed time frame for Trial Court disposal; expedite hearing; Original Suit No.490/2016; III Additional Civil Judge Belagavi; I.A. No.02 and 03; Trial Court pendency report; 137 suits pending upto 2016 as on 31.01.2026; pendency from 1994; senior citizen petitioner aged 61; Articles 226 and 227; GM-CPC; WP No.100249 of 2026; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad; disposed with request to expedite; I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

Request to the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi to expedite the hearing of Original Suit No.490/2016, given petitioner No.1's age of about 61 years; no fixed timeline imposed; all I.As. in the writ petition ordered closed. ¶38

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, Vs Smt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court may direct the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi (by way of mandamus / fixed timeline) to adjudicate Original Suit No.490/2016 at the earliest. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

This Court held that it cannot fix any timeline to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter, acting on the Apex Court's repeatedly stated position that High Courts should not issue a writ of mandamus directing Trial Courts to dispose of a matter within a fixed time frame except where exceptionally warranted.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Considering that petitioner No.1 is aged about 61 years, the writ petition was disposed of with a request (not a mandamus or timeline) to the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi to expedite the hearing of Original Suit No.490/2016.

¶38

Key takeaways

All interlocutory applications filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-CPC) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Smt. Janakibai and Shri Kiran Parashuram Palkar seeking (i) a writ of mandamus to the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi to adjudicate Original Suit No.490/2016 at the earliest, and (ii) adjudication of I.A. No.02 and 03 and connected memos before proceeding with the suit. Recalling the Hon'ble Apex Court's repeated holding that High Courts should not issue mandamus directing Trial Courts to dispose of matters within a fixed time frame except in exceptional cases, the Court called for a pendency report from the Trial Court, which indicated about 137 suits pending up to the year 2016 as on 31.01.2026, with matters pending right from 1994. Concluding that it could not fix any timeline for the Trial Court, the Court nevertheless, considering petitioner No.1's age of about 61 years, disposed of the petition by requesting the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of Original Suit No.490/2016, and ordered that all interlocutory applications in the writ petition stand closed. Oral order dated 11.02.2026 by Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, HC-KAR, NC: 2026:KHC-D:2044.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2044 WP No. 100249 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100249 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JANAKIBAI W/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. MANOHAR HATTARKI, PLOT NO.1040 GOURI BUILDING, NEAR GANESH GARDEN, SUBHASH MARKET ROAD, HINDWADI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590011.

¶10

SHRI. KIRAN S/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, C/O. MANOHAR HATTARKI, PLOT NO.1040, GOURI BUILDING, NEAR GANESH GARDEN, SUBHASH MARKET ROAD, HINDWADI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590011.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SANDEEP HOSAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. JIJABAI CLAIM TO BE W/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO.451/2, CTS. NO.1259, II^ND CROSS, NAZAR CAMP, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005.

¶16

KUM. VINAYAK CLAIM TO BE S/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HOUSE NO.451/2, CTS. NO.1259, II^ND CROSS, NAZAR CAMP, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2044 WP No. 100249 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) REGIONAL OFFICE, 1049/B-2, TILAKWADI, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI, TAL. AND DIST. BELATGAVI-590016.

¶20

THE REGISTRAR, CITY CORPORATION BELAGAVI, BIRTH AND DEATH SECTION, SP ROAD, BELAGAVI-577428.

¶21

SMT. SHAILA @ SHALAJA WD/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MULGUND, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582117.

¶22

KUMARI. AKSHATA D/O. PARASHURAM PALKAR, (AFTER MARRIAGE, SMT. SANJANA W/O. MAHANTESH YALIGAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VAKKALIGAR ONI, NEAR 3 NO. SCHOOL GADAG-582103)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, GROUNDS, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON, THE PETITIONERS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONERS. I. TO ISSUE A DIRECTION BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, TO ADJUDICATE THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.490/2016 AT THE EARLIEST. II. TO ISSUE A DIRECTION BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, TO ADJUDICATE SAID I.A NO.02 AND 03 AND THE CONNECTED MEMOS, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE SAID MATTER. III. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2044 WP No. 100249 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking mandamus directing the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi to adjudicate Original Suit No.490/2016 at the earliest. It is the case of the petitioner that she who is a senior citizen aged about 61 years.

¶32

The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the High Court should not issue a writ of mandamus directing the Trial Courts to dispose of a matter within a fixed time frame, as it is for the Trial Court to regulate and decide cases as per the requirements. Unless and until it is an exceptional warranting such order, the Court cannot pass any order. Hence in that regard, considering the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court had called for the report from the concerned Trial Court to look at the pendency of cases. The said report indicates that the total pending suits before the Trial Court upto the year 2016 as on 31.01.2026 are about 137. Right from 1994, the matters are pending and as per the latest data, upto 2013 there are 17 matters, upto 2014 there are 15 matters, upto 2015 there are 29 matters and upto 2026 there are 44 matters.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2044 WP No. 100249 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

In view of the above, this Court cannot fix any timeline to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter. However, considering the case of the petitioner No.1 who is aged about 61 years, this Court is passing the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is disposed of requesting the III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi to expedite the hearing of Original Suit No.490/2016.

¶39

(ii) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶42

RH CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, v. Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, v. Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

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

Legal Manager, Vs Mohammad Yakub

Ensure Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malatesh Gudda Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jeevan S/O. Nagaraj Mattihalli Vs Nagaraj Alias Nagaraj S/O Basappa Ningavvanavar

Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar Vs Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla Vs City Munciapal Council Mundaragi