Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri H K Govindappa Vs Smt B P Vani — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri H K Govindappa Vs Smt B P VaniSri H K Govindappa v. Smt B P Vani

Dismissed¶36-37

Sri H K Govindappa v. Smt B P Vani

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2026WP/3044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: High Court of Karnataka; Bengaluru; WP No. 3044 of 2023; GM-CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition; quash order dated 17.11.2022; IA No.7; OS No.4153/2016; O.S.No.4153/2016; XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore; CCH16; suit for specific performance; compromise; suit decreed 27.02.2026; memo for withdrawal; dismissed as withdrawn; H.K. Govindappa; B.P. Vani; Kumari Chitra; G.R. Natarajan; Sri. Rahul P. advocate; Sri. S.V. Prakash advocate; Vijaykumar A. Patil; Annx-A; Malleshwaram Bangalore; NC: 2026:KHC:34747. Use for: Article 227 petitions withdrawn after compromise/decree of underlying suit; no merits decided, limited citation value.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition pursuant to the petitioner's memo; petition recorded as dismissed as withdrawn. No relief on the prayer to quash the IA No.7 order; no costs or directions indicated.

Why is it important?

This Court accepted the petitioner's memo for withdrawal and, in terms of the memo, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, the petition being rendered non-surviving by the compromise decree dated 27.02.2026 ending the underlying suit; the prayer to quash the order dated 17.11.2022 on IA No.7 was accordingly not adjudicated on merits. ¶36-37

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition pursuant to the petitioner's memo; petition recorded as dismissed as withdrawn. No relief on the prayer to quash the IA No.7 order; no costs or directions indicated.

Issue for consideration

Prayer of the writ petition: quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 in OS No.4153/2016 passed on IA No.7 by the Court XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (vide Annx-A). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

This Court accepted the petitioner's memo for withdrawal and, in terms of the memo, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, the petition being rendered non-surviving by the compromise decree dated 27.02.2026 ending the underlying suit; the prayer to quash the order dated 17.11.2022 on IA No.7 was accordingly not adjudicated on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Vijaykumar A. Patil J. — Writ Petition No. 3044 of 2023 (GM-CPC), decided 09.07.2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:34747). Filed by Sri. H.K. Govindappa under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Smt. B.P. Vani, Kumari Chitra and Sri. G.R. Natarajan, praying to quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 passed on IA No.7 in OS No.4153/2016 by the Court XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (vide Annx-A); the petition arose out of a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4153/2016 (CCH16). When the petition came on for orders, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo for withdrawal stating that the petitioner and the respondents had settled the dispute and entered into a compromise, on which the suit was decreed by order dated 27.02.2026, so the petition did not survive. Held: in terms of the memo, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The merits of the challenge to the 17.11.2022 order were not adjudicated; no precedent was cited or treated.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34747 WP No. 3044 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3044 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.H.K.GOVINDAPPA, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.29, VAISHNAVI HOMES, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT.B.P.VANI, W/O LATE BALASUBRAMANIAN N., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

KUMARI CHITRA, D/O LATE BALASUBRAMANIAN N, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

SRI. G.R.NATARAJAN, S/O NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT NO.56/2, 4^TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34747 WP No. 3044 of 2023

HC-KAR

MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN OS NO.4153/2016, PASSED ON IA NO.7 BY THE COURT XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner files a

memo seeking withdrawal of the petition. The memo so

filed reads as follows:

" MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

." The petitioner humbly submit that, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4153/2016 before the Court of the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH16), the present petition arises out of the said suit and now the petitioner humbly submits that the petitioner and the respondents have settled the dispute and entered into a compromise, on the said

NC: 2026:KHC:34747 WP No. 3044 of 2023

3 -

HC-KAR

compromise the hon'ble court has decreed the suit by an order dated 27.02.2026. Hence, the present petition does not survive, hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above petition in the interest of justice and equity."

In terms of memo, the petition is dismissed as

withdrawn .

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

HR

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Prayer of the writ petition: quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 in OS No.4153/2016 passed on IA No.7 by the Court XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (vide Annx-A).¶23
2.
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication, given the petitioner's memo stating that the parties settled the dispute by compromise and the underlying specific-performance suit was decreed by order dated 27.02.2026.medium confidence¶35
The court held
This Court accepted the petitioner's memo for withdrawal and, in terms of the memo, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, the petition being rendered non-surviving by the compromise decree dated 27.02.2026 ending the underlying suit; the prayer to quash the order dated 17.11.2022 on IA No.7 was accordingly not adjudicated on merits.ratio¶36-37

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 17.11.2022 in OS No.4153/2016 passed on IA No.7 (vide Annx-A), challenged via writ petition under Article 227 seeking its quashing.¶23
XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore · 17.11.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4153/2016 before the Court of the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH16); the writ petition arises out of that suit.¶31
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No. 3044 of 2023 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 on IA No.7.¶23
Prior proceeding
Per the petitioner's memo, the petitioner and the respondents settled the dispute and entered into a compromise.¶31
Prior proceeding
On the compromise, the trial court decreed the suit by an order dated 27.02.2026, upon which the petitioner stated the writ petition did not survive.¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sri. H.K. Govindappa, s/o Krishnappa¶9
Sri. Rahul P.
respondent
Smt. B.P. Vani, w/o late Balasubramanian N.¶14
Sri. S.V. Prakash
respondent
Kumari Chitra, d/o late Balasubramanian N.¶15
respondent
Sri. G.R. Natarajan¶16

Coram

AI extract

Vijaykumar A. Patilauthor¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 7 Feb 2023
Case no.: WP/3044/2023
CNR: KAHC010070152023
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Vijaykumar A. Patil
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Vijaykumar A. Patil

Strategic Outsourcing Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka
8 Jul 2026
Sri Swamy Vs Sri B Marigowda
8 Jul 2026
Mr. P. Chandrashekar Reddy Vs Mr. S Thyagaraja
8 Jul 2026
Sri Uttamchand Vs Smt Kempamma
9 Jul 2026
Sri Shivanna Vs Smt H S Manjula
9 Jul 2026
Smt Vasantha @ Vasanthakumari B K Vs Smt. Budevamma
9 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri H K Govindappa v. Smt B P Vani, WP/3044/2023 (KA), decided on 9 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order dated 17.11.2022 in OS No.4153/2016 passed on IA No.7 (vide Annx-A), challenged via writ petition under Article 227 seeking its quashing.XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore · 17.11.2022
Petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4153/2016 before the Court of the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH16); the writ petition arises out of that suit.
Writ Petition No. 3044 of 2023 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 on IA No.7.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Vijaykumar A. Patil

Parties & counsel