Dismissed

C v. Jayaramareddy v Bajantri Krishnappa

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/28548/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an execution-court order but withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file a miscellaneous appeal, with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit if filed within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file Miscellaneous Appeal, Section 14 Limitation Act benefit if appeal filed within six weeks, and direction to return papers to counsel.

C v Jayaramareddy Vs Bajantri Krishnappa — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9481 WP No. 28548 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28548 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C V JAYARAMAREDDY S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT CHOKKADODDI VILLAGE NOW PRESIDING AT C/O PULEPALLIL SHANKARK REDDY KOLIMIKUNTE (SHIVAKESHAVA NAGAR) MUTHYALPET, MULBAGAL TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT 560 117.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BAJANTRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE BAJANTRI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/A CHOKKADODDI VILLAGE TAYALUR HOBLI, MULABAGALL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 560 117.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD. 05.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL ON I.A.NO.1, IN EX.NO.22/2021 THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ABOVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:9481 WP No. 28548 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition. The same reads as under:

¶24

“Advocate for the petitioner respectfully seeks permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file Misc. Appeal. Appeal before appropriate Court, since by mistakenly the writ petition has been filed on the impugned orders. Hence, I seek for permission to withdraw the current writ petition with liberty to file M.A. in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶25

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn,

¶26

reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶27

If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶28

Registry is directed to return back the papers /

¶29

documents to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately without any delay.

¶30

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶31

SV; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

C v. Jayaramareddy v Bajantri Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C v. Jayaramareddy v Bajantri Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S M Ramesh Vs Sri N S Jayaprakash

Kamalamma Vs Gurushanthappa

M/S Skylark Developers Vs M/S. Air Craft Employees

Sri Tajammul Pasha Vs Smt Shakira Sultana

Sri Basavaraju T N Vs Smt. Kavitha

Sri Basavaraju T N Vs Sri. Swaminatha