Disposed¶54

Smt Meenakshi v. Sowmya

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026WP/10836/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 seeking certiorari against the First Appellate Court's (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura) rejection of the prayer to consider I.A.No.I (condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963) and I.A.No.II (Order XLI Rule 5(3) CPC) filed with regular appeal R.A.No.22/2025 against the ex-parte decree dated 11.06.2018 in partition suit O.S.No.364/2012; petition disposed of with a time-bound direction (not later than end of June 2026); merits expressly not opined upon.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: (b) First Appellate Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.I and II in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than end of June 2026; (c) parties to co-operate for early disposal of the applications.

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sowmya — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner (defendant No.7 in O.S.No.364/2012) is entitled to a direction that the First Appellate Court dispose of I.A.No.I (Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963) and I.A.No.II (Order XLI Rule 5(3) of CPC) filed along with her appeal R.A.No.22/2025.

¶42

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction for expeditious disposal of the applications.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.I and II, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than end of June 2026; parties directed to co-operate for early disposal of the applications.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-defendant No.7 in O.S.No.364/2012 (a suit for partition and separate possession decreed by judgment and decree dated 11.06.2018, described as ex-parte), challenging the refusal of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura ('First Appellate Court') to consider I.A.No.I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and I.A.No.II under Order XLI Rule 5(3) of CPC filed along with her appeal R.A.No.22/2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the plaintiffs) contested the suit, and since they were served, the First Appellate Court could hear the applications. The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, disposed of the writ petition, directing the First Appellate Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.I and II in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than the end of June 2026, and directing the parties to co-operate for early disposal.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:23674 WP No. 10836 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10836 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT MEENAKSHI W/O LATE LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SOWMYA D/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶14

KODANDARAMA

¶15

S/O SRINIVASA

¶16

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE

¶18

KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571434.

¶19

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA

¶20

D/O LATE ALUREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BYTARAYANAKOPPALU VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶21

PUTTAMADEGOWDA S/O LATE ALUREGOWDA

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23674 WP No. 10836 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571434

¶25

SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O LATE ALUREGOWDA W/O NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NEAR MAHAKALESHWARI TEMPLE SHANTINAGARA

¶26

PANDAVAPURA TOWN AND TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571434.

¶27

VASANTHAMMA D/O. LATE ALUREGOWDA W/O. RAVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NEAR SAIMANDEER, SHANTHI NAGARA PANDAVAPURA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶28

7. GOWRAMMA

¶29

W/O LATE. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434

¶30

SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT SHANTHINAGARA PANDAVAPURA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT- 571434.

¶31

RAMEGOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT T.S CHATRA VILLAGE

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23674 WP No. 10836 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571434.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2026 PASSED IN R.A. NO.22/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. PANDAVAPURA AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶37

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

In this writ petition, the petitioner–defendant No.7

¶40

has sought a direction to the Principal Senior Civil Judge

¶41

and JMFC, Pandavapura (hereinafter referred to as the

¶42

‘First Appellate Court’ for short) to dispose of I.A.No.I filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and I.A.No.II filed under Order XLI Rule 5(3) of CPC.

¶43

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.364/2012. The said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed an

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23674 WP No. 10836 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

appeal in R.A.No.22/2025 before the First Appellate Court, challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.364/2012. Along with the appeal, she has filed I.A.No.I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and I.A.No.II under Order XLI Rule 5(3) of CPC. The First Appellate Court, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer to consider the said applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only contesting parties are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The other respondents have not contested the suit. Since the plaintiffs have been served, the First Appellate Court can hear I.A.Nos.I and II. Therefore, he seeks a direction to dispose of the said applications.

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23674 WP No. 10836 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the writ petition with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶55

b) The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.I and II, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than end of June 2026.

¶56

c) Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the applications.

¶57

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57

Smt Meenakshi v. Sowmya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meenakshi v. Sowmya

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

Suresh M Vs Smt. Nirmala

Sri C R Nagaraju Vs Sri Mruthunjaya

Sri Pastor v Srinivasa Vs Sri K Ramesh Reddy

Smt Kamalamma @ Kamala Vs Sri Ashwathappa

A Siddaiah Vs Kumaraiah

Smt. Devika Raveendra Vs Sri Govindaraju