Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri. B. Shivu @ Shivappa Vs Miss. Ambika — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri. B. Shivu @ Shivappa Vs Miss. AmbikaSri. B. Shivu @ Shivappa v. Miss. Ambika

Disposed¶40

Sri. B. Shivu @ Shivappa v. Miss. Ambika

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/12654/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru - WP No. 12654 of 2022 (GM-CPC), decided 7 January 2026 by Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. Petitioners (B. Shivu @ Shivappa and others) invoked Article 227 seeking certiorari against the portion of the judgment dated 25.01.2019 in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013) appointing the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner, praying for appointment of the Tahsildar instead. Upholding the respondents' maintainability objection, the Court held an Article 227 petition does not lie against a judgment/final decree already passed and disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. Keywords: Article 227; maintainability; final decree proceedings; FDP No.18/2013; Ex.No.43/2022; Court Commissioner; Taluk Surveyor; certiorari; liberty to pursue remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law; the prayer to quash the impugned portion of the judgment and to appoint the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner was not considered on merits.

Why is it important?

A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to challenge a judgment/final decree that has in fact been passed; the appropriate remedy is an appeal. ¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law; the prayer to quash the impugned portion of the judgment and to appoint the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner was not considered on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge a judgment/final decree already passed in final decree proceedings, or whether an appeal is the exclusive remedy. +1 more

Court's answer

A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to challenge a judgment/final decree that has in fact been passed; the appropriate remedy is an appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintainability - Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a judgment/final decree already passed - Held, not maintainable; once a final decree/judgment has been passed, only an appeal can be filed to challenge it. The petitioners had challenged, under Article 227, the portion of the judgment dated 25.01.2019 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara (Itinerary at Honnali), in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013), appointing the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner, and sought appointment of the Tahsildar instead. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded the challenge was confined to a portion of the judgment but could not deny that a final judgment had been passed. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law. (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.)

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1015 WP No. 12654 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO.12654 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

SRI. MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

SRI. KALLAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/O KAMMARGHATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK - 577 224, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MISS. AMBIKA D/O B. SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, C/O SATHYA SINGH RAJAPUTARU,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1015 WP No. 12654 of 2022

HC-KAR

KAMMARGHATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK - 577 224, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

SRI. UMESHA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KAMMARGHATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK - 577 224, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

SMT. SHAKUNTALAMMA @ SHAKUNTALA W/O CHANNABASAPPA BANAKARA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

SRI. GANESHA S/O CHANNABASAPPA BANAKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O YATNAHALLI VILLAGE, HIREKARURU TALUK - 581 109, HAVERI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR ORDERS TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2019, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUGE AND JMFC, AT HARIHARA ITINERARY AT HONNALI, IN FDP NO.18/2013, WITH RESPECT TO APPOINTMENT OF TALUK SURVEYOR AS COURT COMMISSIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THEREBY APPOINTMENT THE TAHSILDAR AS COURT COMMISSIONER TO SUBMIT THE REPORT AND ETC

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1015 WP No. 12654 of 2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that this petition is not maintainable, since the challenge in this petition is to a judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Harihara, Itinerary at Honnali, in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013). Learned counsel contends that once a final decree has been passed, only an appeal can be filed to challenge the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the challenge is confined to a portion of the said judgment. However, he was unable to deny that a final judgment has, in fact, been passed. Given these circumstances, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is clearly not maintainable.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1015 WP No. 12654 of 2022

HC-KAR

In view of these circumstances, the petition is disposed

of, granting liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances.

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge a judgment/final decree already passed in final decree proceedings, or whether an appeal is the exclusive remedy.¶35
The court held
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to challenge a judgment/final decree that has in fact been passed; the appropriate remedy is an appeal.ratio¶36
2.
Whether the portion of the judgment dated 25.01.2019 appointing the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner ought to be set aside and the Tahsildar appointed as Court Commissioner to submit the report (not decided, as the petition was disposed of on maintainability).medium confidence¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Portion of the judgment dated 25.01.2019 in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013) appointing the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner (Annexure-C); the petitioners sought its quashing and appointment of the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner instead.¶28
Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Harihara Itinerary at Honnali · 25.01.2019
Prior proceeding
Final decree proceedings culminating in a judgment dated 25.01.2019 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara (Itinerary at Honnali), in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013); the petitioners conceded a final judgment had been passed.¶35
Prior proceeding
The present writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the said portion of the judgment and to appoint the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner to submit the report.¶28

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI. B. SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA, SRI. MANJAPPA, SRI. KALLAPPA AND SRI. PRAKASH (sons of Late Rangappa) - PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4¶10
V B Siddaramaiah
respondent
MISS. AMBIKA, SRI. UMESHA, SMT. SHAKUNTALAMMA @ SHAKUNTALA AND SRI. GANESHA - RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4¶18
Siddamallappa P M

Coram

AI extract

Tara Vitasta Ganjuauthor¶33

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 7 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 25 Jun 2022
Case no.: WP/12654/2022
CNR: KAHC010279012022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Tara Vitasta Ganju

Sri N Krishnappa Vs Sri Anjanappa
6 Jan 2026
Sri Aravind G P Vs Gemini Shares and Stocks Private Limited
6 Jan 2026
Dr v Surendra Shetty Vs v Dinesh Hegde
6 Jan 2026
Sri Bharath Kumar Vs Sri Munivenkatappa
7 Jan 2026
Rangaswamy P Vs Keshavamurthy H v
7 Jan 2026
Smt. Treja Vishwanath Vs Sri. K R Srinivas
7 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri. B. Shivu @ Shivappa v. Miss. Ambika, WP/12654/2022 (KA), decided on 7 January 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Portion of the judgment dated 25.01.2019 in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013) appointing the Taluk Surveyor as Court Commissioner (Annexure-C); the petitioners sought its quashing and appointment of the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner instead.Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Harihara Itinerary at Honnali · 25.01.2019
Final decree proceedings culminating in a judgment dated 25.01.2019 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara (Itinerary at Honnali), in Ex.No.43/2022 (FDP.No.18/2013); the petitioners conceded a final judgment had been passed.
The present writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the said portion of the judgment and to appoint the Tahsildar as Court Commissioner to submit the report.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel