Sri P Nataraja Vs Sri Sampangi

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 3^RD

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL IN MA No.5027/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-M BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL IN O.S No.1393/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Heard Sri.A. Ravishankar, learned counsel for Sri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. B. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶37

This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.8(a) to 8(d), challenging the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (trial Court), in O.S. No.1393/2006, whereby the petitioners were restrained by an order of injunction from alienating or encumbering Item No.1 of the suit schedule property, and further challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal (appellate Court), in

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

M.A. No.5027/2022, whereby the said order of injunction dated

¶42

09.09.2022 was confirmed.

¶43

Sri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court granted the order of injunction based on certain documents produced by the plaintiffs. It is contended that, upon verification of the genuineness of those documents, the Tahsildar, in an affidavit filed before this Court in the contempt petition, has stated that the said documents are concocted. It is further submitted that, in the light of these subsequent developments casting doubt on the documents relied upon, the matter requires reconsideration by the trial Court.

¶44

3.1 It is also submitted that, though the suit is of the year 2006 and the petitioners had purchased the properties in the year 2005, the application for injunction came to be filed only in the year 2021. Learned counsel further submits that the order of injunction may be vacated by recording the undertaking of the petitioners that the property in question shall not be alienated during the pendency of the suit.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Per contra , Sri. B. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that the property in question is joint family property. It is contended that, at an earlier point of time, sale deeds came to be executed due to misrepresentation, and the petitioners are purchasers under the said defective sale deeds. It is further submitted that the respondents had no knowledge of the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel submits that the documents produced and relied upon by the trial Court are documents issued by the competent authorities.

¶49

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

¶50

The suit is one for declaration and partition and was instituted in the year 2006. As per the averments made in the plaint, there are more than three sale deeds executed prior to the institution of the suit. The petitioners claim to be bona fide purchasers, whereas the plaintiffs contend that the sale deeds were obtained by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

6.1 It is also alleged that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are concocted, which contention is sought to be substantiated by the statement made by the Tahsildar. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, made available to this Court, would only indicate that the said documents are prima facie doubtful. The veracity and evidentiary value of the said documents require consideration by the trial Court in a full-fledged trial.

¶54

6.2 Be that as it may, considering that the suit is of the year 2006, at this length of time, reconsideration of the interim prayer may not be warranted. The order of injunction has been in operation since 09.09.2022 and merely restrains the petitioners from alienating the suit schedule property. If the said order is interfered with by this Court, there is every possibility of the petitioners further alienating the property and creating third-party interests, thereby resulting in multiplicity of proceedings.

¶55

6.3 At the same time, the contention of the petitioners that the injunction was granted based on allegedly concocted documents also cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is jointly

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

submitted that the suit is presently at the stage of recording the evidence of PW.1.

¶60

6.4 It is further to be noted that, in earlier proceedings in W.P. No.15161/2023, this Court, by order dated 25.10.2024, had directed the Trial Court to dispose of O.S. No.1393/2006 on a day-to-day basis and within a period of six months from

¶61

the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, it is evident that, despite such directions issued by this Court, there

¶62

has been no substantial progress in the suit. Such lack of progress and non-compliance by the trial Court prima facie amounts to disobedience of the order of this Court dated 25.10.2024.

¶63

6.5 The pendency of the present writ petition cannot be a ground for not proceeding with the suit, inasmuch as the present writ petition pertains only to the order of injunction and does not operate as a stay of further proceedings in the suit.

¶64

In the light of the earlier order dated 25.10.2024, and having noticed that there are no justifiable reasons as to why

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the suit has not progressed even after nearly 20 years, this Court, though ordinarily does not fix a timeline for the Trial Court, is constrained, in view of the aforesaid developments and the conduct of the trial Court, to issue time-bound directions for disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the following:

¶68

O R D E R

¶69

(i) Writ petition is disposed of .

¶70

(ii) The order of the trial Court dated 09.09.2022 and the appellate Court dated 28.07.2025 insofar as the injunction operates to continue.

¶71

(iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on day to day basis within a period of 4 months from the date of placing copy of this order before the trial Court.

¶72

(iv) The Registrar General is directed to communicate copy of this order to the concerned Court for compliance.

¶73

(v) The Registrar General is further directed to seek an explanation from the Presiding Officer as to why the

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:24255 WP No. 25273 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

order in W.P. No.15161/2023 dated 25.10.2024 is

¶78

not complied with.

¶79

(vi) The explanation submitted by the Presiding Officer shall be placed before this Court.

¶80

The trial Court shall grant opportunity for recording of evidence or to cross-examine either of the parties. If those stages are closed for non-co-operation or non-availment of any of the opportunities, the trial Court is directed not to re-open the stages closed.

¶81

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶82

VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri P Nataraja v. Sri Sampangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Nataraja v. Sri Sampangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K J Vijayamma Vs Hmt Limited

Smt B v Kavitha Vs Smt D R Hemalatha

Sri. D. P. Agarwal Vs Smt. Anandamma. R. M.

Sri a Rajashekar Hebbar Vs Sri Manohar Shetty

Sri. Ravi S Vs Sri. Chandrashekar

Sri Micheal Sequeira Vs Mr. Avil Vas