Ravi S/O Late Chaluvaiah Vs Chaluvamma

SMT. KUMARI W/O LATE SHIVANNA D/O LATE HALAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT HOTEL THIMMANNA RASTE BEHIND HULIYAMMA TEMPLE KYATHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE MYSORE-570 019.

¶23

PRABHAMANI W/O LATE BHAGYARAJ D/O LATE HALAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶24

INDRAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY D/O HALAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶25

KAMALAMMA W/O LATE CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶26

RESP NOS.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE ALL R/AT BASTHIPURA VILLAGE BELAGULA POST SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶27

MAHALAKSHMI W/O CABAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29328 W.P. No.23746/2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

R/O. BEHIND CHIKKAGARADI GANJAM SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 606.

¶31

JYOTHI W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O. 5TH CROSS, IDARAGUNDI NAZARBAD MOHALAL MYSORE-570 012.

¶32

MAMATHA W/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O NO.181, 3RD CROSS RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA MYSORE-570 012.

¶33

THYAGARAJU S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O. ANANDURU VILLAGE BELAGOLA HOBLI-571 606 SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

¶34

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (K.I.A.D.B.) NEAR VIKRANTH FACTORY METAGALLI POST, MYSORE-560 037.

¶35

NAYANA ACCHAPPA W/O B.K. ACCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O. NO. 19, LALITH MAHAL ROAD MYSORE-571 311.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R14 R1 CHALUVAMMA – SD R2 BORAMMA – SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:05.01.2023, NOTICE TO R3 TO R13 AND R15 ARE D/W)

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29328 W.P. No.23746/2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022, PASSED ON I.A.NO II IN FDP NO 05/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A NO II FILED BY THE R1 AND R2 & ETC.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in FDP No.5/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapattana (for short, ‘the FDP Court’).

¶45

Heard Sri.Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.14.

¶46

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.77/2006 for partition and separate possession which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 28.02.2015. The said judgment and decree was assailed

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:29328 W.P. No.23746/2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

by the defendant in R.A.No.5023/2015. It is to be noticed that the regular appeal filed by the defendants was not contested. The same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.03.2017. The order of the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5023/2015 dated 28.03.2017 was assailed in Misc. No.5003/2017 which was rejected by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapattana, vide order dated 06.10.2018 on the ground of delay. The said order was assailed by the petitioner and others in Civil Revision Petition

¶51

No.609/2018.

¶52

It is to be noticed that this Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 allowed the civil revision petition and restored the regular appeal in R.A.No.5023/2015. It is submitted at the Bar that the regular appeal came to be dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 02.12.2023 which was assailed in R.S.A.No.11/2024 which is pending

¶53

before this Court. It is to be noticed that the present proceeding is arising out of an order passed by the FDP

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29328 W.P. No.23746/2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Court on I.A.No.2 wherein the petitioner's application under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) for appointment of the Court Commissioner was allowed and the FDP Court has appointed the Tahsildar / ADLR, Srirangapattana, as the Court Commissioner and ordered to demarcate item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties as per the preliminary decree. It is to be noticed that this Court in R.S.A.No.11/2024 has stayed the drawing up of the final decree proceedings.

¶57

When things stood thus, in my considered view,

¶58

the proceeding pending before the FDP Court is with regard to the drawing up of final decree and the FDP Court

¶59

has ordered to appoint the Court Commissioner to demarcate the properties as per the preliminary decree. In my considered view, there is no stay of further proceedings of FDP No.5/2018 by this Court in R.S.A.No.11/2024. Hence, there is no impediment for the FDP Court to proceed further. However, it shall not draw

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29328 W.P. No.23746/2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the final decree proceedings. Hence, the impugned order appointing the Competent Officer to demarcate the suit schedule properties as per the preliminary decree is in consonance with law and facts and does not call for any interference.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any error in the impugned order and this Court, in the regular second appeal has only stayed the drawing up of final decree proceedings. Hence, there is no impediment for the Court Commissioner to carry out the exercise as ordered in the impugned order.

¶64

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is

¶65

accordingly disposed of.

¶66

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶67

RV

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Ravi S/O Late Chaluvaiah v. Chaluvamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi S/O Late Chaluvaiah v. Chaluvamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Prashanth Hegde Vs Dr H Nanjappa

Maxworth Realty India Limited Vs Smt. Nagalakshmanna Since Dead by Lrs

Smt v Bhagya Vs Smt v Dhanalakshmi

Sri B Keshava Kumar Vs Mr. Sajid Samran

Sri Honnegowda Vs Smt Nagamma

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri M K Thimmegowda