Allowed

Sri Ramachandra B H v. Smt. Puttamma

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026WP/30376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought extension of time to deposit Rs.5,000 cost and lead evidence in a partition suit remanded by the First Appellate Court; their Section 151 CPC application was rejected. The High Court held the rejection hyper-technical, set it aside and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside; Section 151 CPC extension application allowed; time to appear in O.S.No.550/2015 extended up to 16.02.2026.

Sri Ramachandra B H Vs Smt. Puttamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 30376 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAMACHANDRA B.H. S/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. UMA D/O LATE JAYAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. LATHA D/O LATE JAYAMMA W/O BYRESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572107

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. CHIKKAMMA D/O LATE BALAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT URDIGERE VILLAGE URDIGRE HOBLI-572410 TUMAKURU TALUK

¶15

SRI. ERAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH @ CHIKKA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT GOWDIHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI-572107 TUMAKURU TALUK

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. MALLESHAIAH W/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶25

ALL ARE R/AT GOWDIHALLI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572107

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2025, PASSED BY THE COURT OF 7^TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, PASSED ON IA NO.NIL, FILED PETITIONERS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN RA NO.195/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE - L AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition filed by the appellants in R.A.No.195/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2025, whereby

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the application filed by the petitioners/ appellants for extension of time to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- and for permission to file necessary documents and adduce evidence before the Trial Court was rejected by the First Appellate Court.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶37

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶38

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioners/ plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.550/2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the respondents/ defendants, in the first instance the Trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 20.08.2022 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners who approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.195/2022. By judgment and decree dated 01.02.2025, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners/ appellants and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and permitting the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petitioners to produce documents and adduce further evidence by subject to depositing a cost of Rs.5,000/- before the Trial Court.

¶43

Subsequently, the petitioners who did not deposit the costs as directed by the First Appellate Court filed the instant application seeking extension of time to deposit the said costs and to lead evidence which was rejected by the First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 22.08.2025 which is assailed in the present petition.

¶44

As stated supra, pursuant to the petitioners/ appellants filing the instant application in R.A.195/2022, the respondents before the First Appellate Court neither objected to the said application nor appeared before the First Appellate Court. In this context, the impugned order clearly indicates that the First Appellate Court has adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to grant extension of time in favour of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, having regard to the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court which itself permitted the petitioners/ plaintiffs to adduce further evidence by depositing a cost of Rs.5,000/- coupled with the fact that valuable proprietary

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

and possessory rights of the parties over immovable properties are involved in the proceedings, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the application filed by the petitioners/ appellants in R.A.195/2022 as sought for by them and dispose of the present petition accordingly.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The petition is hereby allowed .

¶50

ii. Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Court of 7^th Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru on I.A.No.Nil in R.A.No.195/2022 vide Annexure-L is set aside.

¶51

iii. The Application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in R.A No.195/2022 for extension of time stands allowed.

¶52

iv. The time fixed for appearance of the petitioners before the Trial Court in O.S. No.550/2015 is extended up to 16.02.2026.

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4738 WP No. 30376 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

v. The petitioners and respondents are directed to appear before the Trial Court in O.S No.550/2015 on 16.02.2026 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court.

¶56

vi. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions.

¶57

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶58

MRP-page Nos.1 to 5 SMA-from point No.iii, in page 5 till the end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Ramachandra B H v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramachandra B H v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun Reddy K Vs Sri M R Krishna Murthy

Rishi Orchards Pvt. Ltd., Vs Muniyappa

K B Manjunatha Vs Smt Sarojamma

H B Shivu Vs H C Cheluvaraju

Smt.Kalavakunta Jyothi Vs Smt.Jayamma

K N Gope Gowda Vs Ananda K G