Dismissed¶59

Dinesh @ Rama Dinesh Ramappa v. Sadashiva

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/19554/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 10 CPC; stay of appeal proceedings; parallel proceedings/lis pendens; partition suit O.S.No.45/2010; preliminary decree 19.02.2014; final decree 28.11.2024; FDP.No.1/2015; R.A.No.17/2025; O.S.No.48/2024 declaration suit based on Will; I.A.No.VI dismissal; Article 227 certiorari; GM-CPC; High Court of Karnataka; Lalitha Kanneganti J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Appellate Court was perfectly right in dismissing the stay application when the scope of Section 10 of the CPC and the facts and circumstances of the case are considered, particularly the fact that the preliminary decree in O.S.No.45/2010 was not questioned. ¶56

Dinesh @ Rama Dinesh Ramappa Vs Sadashiva — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should succeed in quashing the Appellate Court's order dated 30.04.2026 dismissing I.A.No.VI in R.A.No.17/2025, i.e., whether the proceedings in R.A.No.17/2025 ought to have been stayed till disposal of O.S.No.48/2024 having regard to Section 10 CPC.

¶29

Court's answer

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Factual premise recorded by this Court: the petitioner admittedly did not question the preliminary decree in O.S.No.45/2010 but only the final decree; no stay or interim order had been granted in the appeal; and thereafter he filed the present suit seeking different reliefs.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Court below rightly dismissed the application and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Dinesh @ Rama Dinesh Ramappa (appellant in R.A.No.17/2025, represented through GPA holder) challenging the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, N.R.Pura (itinerating at Koppa) dismissing I.A.No.VI, his application to stay the appeal proceedings till disposal of O.S.No.48/2024 - a declaration suit founded on a Will said to have been executed by his father. The High Court (Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti) held that the Appellate Court was perfectly right: on the scope of Section 10 CPC, the petitioner had never questioned the preliminary decree in O.S.No.45/2010 (partition suit decreed 19.02.2014; final decree 28.11.2024; the appeal is directed against the order in FDP.No.1/2015), no stay or interim order operated in the appeal, and the reliefs sought in the later suit were different; hence there was no necessity to stay the appeal. Writ petition dismissed; all pending I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.19554 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DINESH @ RAMA DINESH RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT NAKKARIKE, HOSUR VILLAGE, MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK,

¶10

REP. BY GPA HOLDER RAMYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O DINESH @ RAMA DINESH RAMAPPA, RESIDING AT NAKKARIKE, HOSUR VILLAGE MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK - 577 123.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SADASHIVA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE, MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK - 577 123.

¶17

LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT NAKKARIKE, HOSUR VILLAGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK - 577 123.

¶21

CHANDRAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT H.HOSUR VILLAGE, MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK - 577 123.

¶22

KUSUMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT NAKKARIKE, HOSUR VILLAGE, MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK - 577 123.

¶23

GOWRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT K/6, SECTOR NO.III, BMC COLONY, ANAND NAGARA, NEW LINK ROAD, MUMABI - 400 102.

¶24

SHOBHA R, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, RESIDING AT SHESHADRI NILAYA, KALYANI CHOWK ROAD, NEAR BOREWELL, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 418.

¶25

CHANDRAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMA MADIVALA, R/AT NAKKARIKE, HOSUR VILLAGE, MEGUNDI HOBLI, KOPPA - 577 123.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI IN R.A.NO.17/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.VI IN R.A.NO.17/2025 AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.VI in R.A.No.17/2025 dated 30.04.2026 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, N.R.Pura, itinerate at Koppa, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein.

¶33

2. The petitioner is the appellant before the Appellate Court. Earlier, O.S.No.45/2010 was filed seeking partition by some of the family members, without making the petitioner herein a party, and it was decreed on 19.02.2014. A final decree was passed on 28.11.2024. The

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petitioner herein questioned the same by filing RA.No.17/2025. Thereafter, he has instituted

¶38

O.S.No.48/2024 seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree in the earlier proceedings are not binding on him, and that, by virtue of a Will executed by his father, he is the owner of the properties, as the father, by way of a Will, bequeathed the properties and he has become the owner of the property.

¶39

3. The present application is filed to stay the appeal proceedings till the suit is decided. That application is dismissed by the order impugned. While dismissing the application, the Court observed that a reading of Section 10 of the CPC makes it clear that the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. But in the present case, the appellant filed a separate suit for the relief of declaration in O.S.No.48/2024. However, respondent No.1 filed a suit

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

in O.S.No.45/2010 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The issue involved in the said suit is not directly an issue involved in the suit in O.S.No.48/2024.

¶44

4. It is observed that on careful perusal of the

¶45

record, the appeal is admittedly a continuation of the original suit. However, in the present case, the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.45/2010, but has challenged the order passed in FDP.No.1/2015 before the Court. Further, the issue involved in O.S.No.45/2010 and the issues involved in O.S.No.48/2024 are not one and the same, and the original suit was disposed of. Hence, there is no necessity to stay the further proceedings of this appeal till disposal of O.S.No.48/2024, and accordingly, the application is dismissed.

¶46

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second suit is the one bearing OS.No.48/2024, and that he has also sought a declaration that the judgment and decree are not binding on him. He

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

further relies on a Will executed in favour of the petitioner

¶50

by the father, under which the properties are bequeathed on him. Until that suit is decided, the proceeding in RA.No.17/2025 has to be stayed. This aspect was not considered by the Court, and the application was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner is seeking different relief in the suit. It is submitted that the impugned order needs to be set aside.

¶51

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The original suit is O.S.No.45/2010, and the preliminary decree was passed on 19.02.2014. A final decree was passed on 28.11.2024. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not questioned the preliminary decree, but he has questioned the final decree. When he filed an appeal questioning the final decree, the Court did not stay the proceedings, nor was any interim order passed in the appeal. After that, he filed the present suit seeking different reliefs.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:33378 WP No. 19554 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

7. The Court was perfectly right in dismissing the

¶56

application, considering the scope of Section 10 of the CPC and the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that the preliminary decree is not questioned. The

¶57

Court has rightly dismissed the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59