Allowed¶67

Mallesha v. G H Kalashetty

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/19482/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), W.P. No.19482/2026 (GM-CPC), decided 08-07-2026, Lalitha Kanneganti J. Keywords: Article 227; final decree proceedings (FDP No.04/2008); Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; Section 151 CPC; deletion/dropping of party from array; necessary party; defendant No.4; O.S.No.412/2000; RA No.45/2011; compromise petition; compromise decree; executing court; remand for fresh consideration; Channarayapatna; Hassan district; partition/family property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 19.06.2026 in FDP No.04/2008 set aside and matter remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.11 (to be disposed of within one month of receipt of the order copy, with expeditious disposal of the 2008 FDP); pending I.As. in the writ petition closed. ¶67

Mallesha Vs G H Kalashetty — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant No.4/Mallesha, against whom the original suit O.S.No.412/2000 stood dismissed and who did not file any appeal, is a necessary party to FDP No.04/2008, and whether his deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was therefore proper. +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties with regard to the compromise entered into between them, the order dated 19.06.2026 deleting defendant No.4 from FDP No.04/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The Executing Court shall consider I.A.No.11 in the light of the submissions made before this Court with regard to the compromise decree and dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶69

Key takeaways

Considering that the FDP is of the year 2008, the Executing Court shall expeditiously dispose of the matter.obiter¶70
All pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition shall stand closed.obiter¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by Mallesha (defendant No.4 in FDP No.04/2008) against the order dated 19.06.2026 of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, allowing respondent No.1's application (I.A.No.11) under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC to delete defendant No.4's name from the final decree proceedings, on the ground that the suit O.S.No.412/2000 against him had been dismissed and he had not appealed. The petitioner contended that a compromise had been arrived at during the pendency of the proceedings, payments had been made thereunder and a compromise petition was pending before the trial court, while respondent No.1 denied any compromise. Finding contrary stands on the compromise, the High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded I.A.No.11 to the trial Court (Executing Court) for fresh consideration in the light of the submissions on the compromise decree, with disposal within one month, directed expeditious disposal of the 2008 FDP, and closed pending applications in the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.19482 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MALLESHA S/O. MUDAYYA GORAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-562 160

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ANANDEESWARA D. R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

G. H. KALASHETTY S/O. LATE PUTTASHETTY

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1A. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS DEVIRAMMA W/O. LATE G. H. KALASHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶16

MAHESH SHETTY

¶17

S/O. LATE G. H. KALASHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.S 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT AANIVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

HC-KAR

KALYANAMMA

W/O. HUCHHASHETTY

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE RECORDS MANJASHETTY @ J. H. MANJUNATH S/O. HUCHHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶25

CHANDRAMMA W/O. RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS GURUMARANA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-562 160

¶26

RAMAKRISHNA S/O. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶27

RANGAPPA

¶28

S/O. NANJAPPA

¶29

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶30

RANGAMMA W/O. RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶31

MANJA S/O. RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶32

LATHA D/O. RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶33

PUTTATHAYI D/O. RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

10. SUBBATHAYI D/O. RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶38

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10 ARE R/AT JANIVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116

¶39

JAYAMMA W/O. MALALISHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BANAVASE VILLAGE BAGURRU HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116

¶40

CHANDRAMMA W/O. KUMATSHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT APPENAHALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 131

¶41

MANJULAMMA W/O. KRISHNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS KRISHNA WASHING LAUNDRY BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND HASSAN TOWN HASSAN-573 201

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHARA SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE COURT 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATTANA IN

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

FDP.NO.04/2008 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/06/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATTANA IN FDP.NO.04/2008 ON IA.NO.11 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC FOR DELETION OF THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 I.E. MALLESHA S/O. MUDAYYA AT ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION.

¶48

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

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.11 in FDP No.4/2008 by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, the petitioner/defendant No.4 is before this Court.

¶52

Respondent No.1 herein has filed I.A.No.11 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking to drop defendant No.4/Mallesha. It is the case of the respondents herein and the petitioner therein that Kalashetty filed O.S.No.412/2000. The Court after hearing the evidence, dismissed the suit against respondent Nos.3 to 6 and declared 1/6^th share to the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 has not filed any appeal. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 have filed an appeal before Senior

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. Therefore, respondent No.4 has lost his right to get the property, and since the suit against respondent No.4 has already been dismissed, respondent No.4 is not a necessary party to the present FDP proceedings that came to be allowed by the order impugned. While allowing the application, the court observed that since respondent No.4 was not considered to have any right to any share in the original suit No.412/2000 and RA No.45/2011, the present final decree application against respondent No.4 as prayed for by the petitioner and this petition will not cause any loss to respondent No.4. Accordingly, the court has allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby respondent No.4 in FDP is before this Court.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, during the pendency of the proceedings, they entered into a compromise. As per the compromise, he has paid certain amounts, and a compromise petition is pending before the court. As such, at this point of time, if the petitioner is deleted from the array of parties in the said proceedings, it will cause lot of hardship to the petitioner.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

¶61

No. 1 submits that the respondent has not entered into any compromise and has nothing to do with the said compromise. The court has rightly held that the petitioner’s presence is not necessary in the FDP proceedings. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the order, and after the passing of this order, another I.A has been filed to include him in the final decree proceedings. The respondent has filed objections, and the same is pending consideration. In response, to that learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a compromise petition before the trial court, and that the original plaintiff has signed the same in court. That order sheet is placed before the court.

¶62

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. In the light of the contrary stands taken by both the parties with regard to the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside this order and remand the matter back to the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:34277 WP No. 19482 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The order dated 19.06.2026 in FDP No.04/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶68

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶69

iii. The Executing Court shall consider I.A.No.11 in the light of the submissions made before this Court with regard to the compromise decree and shall dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶70

iv. Considering the fact that the FDP is of the year 2008, the Executing Court shall expeditiously dispose of the matter.

¶71

v. All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶72

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶73

PKN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mallesha v. G H Kalashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallesha v. G H Kalashetty

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

B v Govindraju Vs Malabar Independent

Sri. N. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Chitradurga Dist Khadi Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Smt Ammayamma Vs Smt Jayalakshmi

M/S Avighna Fast Foods Vs Asha Sweet Center

Sri. Krishnamurthy G N Vs Sri. Munigangaiah G