Disposed¶37

Dr v. Surendra Shetty v v Dinesh Hegde

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/15437/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Article 227 writ (GM-CPC) WP 15437/2019; challenge to trial-court order dt. 29.03.2019 in I.A.No.8, O.S.No.99/2013, Prl. Sr. Civil Judge & CJM Udapi; marking of unmarked document to prove defence; direction for DW1 to appear solely to mark document already on record; expedited disposal; joint no-adjournment undertaking; order dt. 06-01-2026 by Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court that, on the next date of hearing, witness-DW1 appear for the sole purpose of marking the document already on record; parties bound by counsel's undertaking not to take unnecessary adjournments. ¶37

Dr v Surendra Shetty Vs v Dinesh Hegde — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.8 (filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.99/2013 to mark a document to prove his defence) should be disposed of with a direction that DW1 appear solely to mark the document already on record.

¶30

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court that, on the next date of hearing, the witness-DW1 shall appear for the sole purpose of marking of the document which is already on record.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The parties are bound down by the statement made by their learned counsel that they will not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Trial Court.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, W.P. No. 15437 of 2019 (GM-CPC), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution — Dr. V.Surendra Shetty & 3 others (petitioners/plaintiffs) v. V.Dinesh Hegde & 2 others (respondents/defendants) — Oral Order dated 06.01.2026 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju. The petition challenged the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.8 filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.99/2013 on the file of the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and CJM, Udapi. Counsel for both sides acknowledged that the specific document, not previously marked, was required to be marked to prove the applicant's defence, and jointly urged disposal in the interest of expediency. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction that, on the next date of hearing, witness-DW1 appear for the sole purpose of marking the document already on record. Noting seven years' pendency, counsel undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and the parties stand bound by those statements.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:420 WP No. 15437 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 15437 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. V.SURENDRA SHETTY AGE:69 YEARS, S/O LATE BOMMAYYA SHETTY, R/O “SIDDARTHA”, OPP. KMC HOSTEL, FALNIR, KAPRIGUDDA, MANGALURU-575 001. D.K.

¶9

SABITA DASA RAI AGE: 73 YEARS, W/O LATE DASA RAI, R/O 656, “JAYANI”, 4^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, OPP. BEST CLUB, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶10

HEMALATHA SURESH SHENAVA AGE:69 YEARS, W/O SURESH SHENAVA, R/O “VAIBHAV”, OPP. KMC HOSTEL, FALNIR, KAPRIGUDDA, MANGALURU-575 001. D.K.

¶11

MAMATHA SATHYANATHA HEGDE AGE: 65 YEARS, W/O CAPT. SATHYANANTHA HEGDE, R/AT “ESWHAR KRIPA”,

¶12

¶13

NC: 2026:KHC:420 WP No. 15437 of 2019

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

NO.59A, ANANTHA NAGAR, II STAGE, MANIPAL-576 104. UDUPI DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.1 DR.V.SURENDRA SHETTY.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.K.ACHARYA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

V.DINESH HEGDE AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE BOMMAYYA SHETTY, R/O “GANESHA KRIPA”, VIDYARATHNA NAGAR, MANIPAL-576 104. UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶20

SHALINI SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGE:63 YEARS, W/O SUDHAKARA SHETTY, R/O NO.501, DIAMOND PARK, NAVGARH ROAD, MULUND(E), MUMBAI-400 081.

¶21

KRISHNALATHA DAYANANDA SHETTY AGE:67 YEARS, W/O LATE DAYANANDA SHETTY, R/O FLAT NO.17, V FLOOR, G-2, PHASE I & II, HERMES HERITAGE, CHS LTD., SHASTRI NAGAR, PUNE-411 005.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED; V/O/DTD: 10.03.2025 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:420 WP No. 15437 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 29.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 29.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.8 filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submit that the I.A.No.8 as set out in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit annexed there to it is stated that the applicant is required to mark the aforesaid document in order to prove his defence. This aspect is not denied by the learned counsel appearing for

¶32

the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. He submits that the specific document, which was not previously marked, is required to be marked and that the applicant would only mark of the same.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:420 WP No. 15437 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Learned counsel for the parties further submits that in the interest of expediency, the matter may be disposed of with the issue of these directions.

¶37

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court that, on the next date of hearing, the witness-DW1 shall appear for the sole purpose of marking of the document which is already on record.

¶38

Given the pendency of the matter before this Court for seven years, the learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that they will not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Trial Court.

¶39

The parties are bound down by the statement made by the learned counsel today.

¶40

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

¶41

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Dr v. Surendra Shetty v v Dinesh Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr v. Surendra Shetty v v Dinesh Hegde

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

Indira Vs Raghu Kotian

Usha @ S Padma Vs Mahalingaiah

Sri. Y. Anirudha Rao Alias Vs Smt. S. Rathna

Smt Saleemakhatoon Vs Sri Ghouse Nawaz Khan

Sri. Veerabhadraiah Vs Sri. J. B. Jagadish

Dasa Shetty Vs Nagaraja @ Naga. S