Dismissed¶26

Sri Basavaraju T N v. Sri. Swaminatha

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/32474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC oral order (S.R. Krishna Kumar J., 16-02-2026); Basavaraju T N v. Swaminatha; W.P. 32474/2025 (GM-CPC) under Articles 226/227 regarding records of R.A.5/2024, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kadur; petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file RSA; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 benefit if filed within six weeks; Registry to return papers.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Regular Second Appeal, entitlement to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if the appeal is filed within six weeks, and immediate return of papers / documents by the Registry. ¶26

Sri Basavaraju T N Vs Sri. Swaminatha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9483 WP No. 32474 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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.32474 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI BASAVARAJU T N S/O NATARAJU AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS BUSINESS AT R/O 31 ACRES AREA, DEVEGOWDA BADAVANE KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. T S VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. SWAMINATHA S/O SRI ALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS STONE BUSINESS R/O BENKI COLONY KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN R.A.5/2024 PENDING BEFORE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:9483 WP No. 32474 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking

¶24

permission to withdraw the petition. The same reads as under:

¶25

“The undersigned Counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above petition with liberty to prefer Regular Second Appeal (RSA) in addition to exclude the time of proceeding pending before this Hon’ble Court, by considering protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn,

¶27

reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file Regular Second Appeal.

¶28

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.

¶29

Registry is directed to return back the papers / documents to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately without any delay.

¶30

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶31

Sri Basavaraju T N v. Sri. Swaminatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basavaraju T N v. Sri. Swaminatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

C v Jayaramareddy Vs Bajantri Krishnappa