Allowed¶45

C R Nagaraj Setty v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WP/1281/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC); WP No. 1281 of 2024; O.S.No.4175/1986; decree for specific performance; impleadment of legal representatives/heirs of deceased defendant; I.A.Nos.3 to 6; Section 28 Specific Relief Act; rejection of applications set aside as unreasoned, cryptic, laconic, non-speaking order; remand for fresh reconsideration after hearing both sides; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; order dated 31.10.2023; death of defendant on 19.02.2017.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.4175/1986 set aside; matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh reconsideration of I.A.Nos.4 to 6 after hearing both sides, with a direction to pass orders on I.A.No.3 if pending; all rival contentions left open.

C R Nagaraj Setty Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order rejecting I.A.Nos.4 to 6 was sustainable, given that it was passed as an unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order without application of mind or cogent reasons. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The Trial Court did not consider or appreciate the rival contentions in their proper perspective and passed an unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order without application of mind and without assigning cogent or proper reasons.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is set aside insofar as it relates to dismissing I.A.Nos.4 to 6, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties and in accordance with law.

¶37

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.3 filed by Sri. C.R. Nagraj Shetty, if pending and not disposed of as on today, in accordance with law, on merits, after hearing both sides.ratio¶52
All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter and on all applications, i.e., I.A.Nos.3 to 6, are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on their merits or demerits.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the legal representatives of late C.R. Nagaraj Setty/Shetty, allowed the petition challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 of the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.4175/1986 (a suit in which the deceased had suffered a decree for specific performance at the instance of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd), whereby I.A.Nos.4 to 6 seeking to bring the petitioners on record as legal representatives/heirs of the deceased defendant stood rejected. Holding that the Trial Court had passed an unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order without application of mind or cogent reasons, the Court set aside the impugned order insofar as it dismissed I.A.Nos.4 to 6 and remitted those applications for fresh reconsideration after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both sides; the Trial Court was further directed to consider and pass orders on I.A.No.3 (an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the deceased during his lifetime) if still pending. All rival contentions on I.A.Nos.3 to 6 were expressly left open, with no opinion expressed on merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1281 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

C.R. NAGARAJ SETTY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶10

NAVANEETHA NAGARAJ W/O LATE C.R NAGARAJ SETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405, 4^TH FLOOR, HOYSALA APARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM CRESCENT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

N. MUKUNDA, S/O LATE C.R NAGARAJ SETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405, 4^TH FLOOR, HOYSALA APARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM CRESCENT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BOMBAY, REGIONAL OFFICE AT 738, ANNASALAI, MADRAS - 600 002

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NOW AT NO.139, M G ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAN HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI – 600 034, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 46/D, FIRST FLOOR, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S. NO. 4175/1986 DATED 31/10/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY THE LEARNED JUDGE NOT ONLY REFUSED TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PROSECUTE THE APPLICATION ON IA NO. 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-B FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED NAGARAJ SHETTY, BUT ALSO DISMISSED THE APPLICATIONS IA NO. 4 TO 6 OF 2022 VIDE ANNEXURES H2 TO H4 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A BELATED APPROACH ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS AND THAT THE VERY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-B IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition by the impleading applicants in O.S.No.4175/1986 is directed against the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the applications, I.A.Nos.4 to 6 filed by the petitioners to come on record as the legal representatives of the original defendant, Sri.C.R. Nagaraj Shetty were rejected by the Trial Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri.C.R.Nagraj Shetty, who suffered a decree for specific performance in O.S.No.4175/1986 filed by the respondents against him. Subsequently, he filed the instant application, I.A.No.3 and upon the demise of the said C.R. Nagaraj Shetty on 19.02.2017, applications in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 were filed by the petitioners to come

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

on record as his heirs and legal representatives. The said I.A.Nos.4 to 6 having been opposed by the respondents, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶36

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, suffice it to state that the Trial Court has not considered or appreciated the rival contentions in their proper perspective and has passed the impugned, unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order without any application of mind and without assigning cogent or proper reasons as to why the applications were being rejected by the Trial Court.

¶37

Under these circumstances, in order to enable the Trial Court to reconsider the applications, I.A.Nos.4 to 6 afresh by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissing I.A.Nos.4 to 6 is concerned and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

reconsideration afresh of I.A.Nos.4 to 6 and in accordance with law.

¶41

Insofar as the application, I.A.No.3 said to have been

¶42

filed by late C.R. Nagaraj Shetty during his lifetime is concerned, while the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said application is pending as on today, it is the specific submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent that the said application is no longer pending as on today. However, in order to ascertain this, in addition to reconsidering I.A.Nos.4 to 6 afresh, in accordance with law as stated supra , I deem it just and appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.3 also, if pending and not disposed of as on today, in accordance with law, after hearing both sides.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed on

¶47

I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.4175/1986 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:10920 WP No. 1281 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration of I.A.Nos.4 to 6 afresh, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both sides and to proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶52

(iv) In addition thereto, the Trial Court is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.3 filed by Sri. C.R. Nagraj Shetty, if pending and not disposed of as on today, in accordance with law, on merits.

¶53

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter and on all applications, i.e., I.A.Nos.3 to 6 are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶54

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

BMC

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

C R Nagaraj Setty v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C R Nagaraj Setty v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

Achalananda Vs Sri Ravi Ankineedu Prasad Rao

Smt. Revathi M S Vs Sri B N Raghavendra

S R Nataraj Vs Sri v Seetharamaiah Shetty

B. Krishnamurthy Vs Sri. L. M. Kodandarama Shetty

Mr. Mukkaram Jan Vs Sri. K Rama

M S Yogesh Vs Prakash M S