Allowed

Sri Maregowda v. Sri Mariyappa

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026WP/33746/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 by heirs of a deceased plaintiff against a suit dismissed as withdrawn via a memo signed only by one co-plaintiff without the others' consent. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and restored the suit to the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal order dated 07.12.2021 set aside; O.S.No.523/2014 restored to trial Court for proceedings in accordance with law.

Sri Maregowda Vs Sri Mariyappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33746 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MAREGOWDA SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS

¶9

SMT. LEELAMMA W/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶10

SMT. K.M. RAJENDRA S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶11

SRI. K.M. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. K.M. JAGADEESH S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL R/AT KOKKAREHOSAHALLI VILLAGE HUKUNDA POST UYYAMBALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND NOW BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 119

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI MARIYAPPA

S/O LATE KEMMAREGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REPBYHIS LRS

¶22

SRI M S GOKUL S/O LATE MARIYAPPA MAJOR R/A NO 682, MANJUNATHA NILAYLA GANAPATHIPURA ROAD KONANAKUNTE BANGALORE 560062

¶23

SRI K M MUTHURAJU S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AKOKKAREHOSAHALLI VILLAGE HUKUNDA POST UYYAMBALLIHOBLI KANKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRIACT AND NOW BANGALORE SOUTHDISTRICT 562119

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE RESERVATION IN QUESTION AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS A) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER TO SET-ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 07.12.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANAKAPURA IN O.S.NO.523/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO.523/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANAKAPURA FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs-

¶34

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following relief to the Petitioner in respect of the reservation in question as against the respondents:

¶35

a) To Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order to set-aside the dismissal order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura in O.S.No.523/2014 vide Annexure-"A" and consequently restore O.S.No.523/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura for fresh consideration on merits.

¶36

b) To Grant such other or further relief/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused

¶38

the material on record. For the order proposed notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners are the wife and sons of late Mare Gowda, who was the original plaintiff, who instituted a suit in O.S.No.625/2013 against the respondent No.1 - defendant for specific performance and other

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid plaintiff Mare Gowda having expired, the petitioners were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives and were arrayed as plaintiff No.1(a), plaintiff No.1(b), plaintiff No.1(d) and plaintiff No.1(e) in the suit. Along with the petitioners, the respondent No.2, who was also one of the sons of late Mare Gowda was arrayed as plaintiff No.1(c) in the suit. As can be seen from the cause title to the amended plaint which is as

¶43

hereunder -

¶44

Plaintiffs:

¶45

Sri Maregowda Since dead rep by his LR's,

¶46

la. Smt. Leelamma, Aged about 60 years, W/o Late Maregowda

¶47

1b. Sri. K.M. Rajendra, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Maregowda

¶48

1c. Sri K.M. Muthuraju Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Maregowda

¶49

1d. Sri K.M. Ravikumar, Aged about 38 years, S/o Late Maregowda

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

1e. Sri. K.M.Jagadeesh Aged about 36 years, S/o Late Maregowda LR's of plaintiffs No.1(a) to 1(e) are

¶53

R/at Kokkarehosahalli Village, Kukunda post, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk.

¶54

V/s

¶55

Defendants:

¶56

Sri B.K. Mariyappa, S/o Late Kemmaregowda, Aged about 56 years, R/at Bilidale village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District Also R/at Chaki Centre Kodihalli, Kanakapura Taluk.

¶57

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though they did

¶58

not give any instructions to their counsel to file a memo seeking withdrawal of the suit, the said memo which is purported to have been filed or signed only by respondent No.2/plaintiff No.1(c) has culminated in the impugned order dismissing the suit as settled out of Court despite the petitioners not having given any instructions to their counsel in this regard. The said memo dated 07.12.2021

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

purported to have been signed by the respondent No.2, plaintiff No.1(c) and the counsel is as under -

¶62

The plaintiff No.3 submits that this matter is settled out

¶63

of Court, suit of the plaintiff dismissed as withdrawn in the above Case, in the interest of Justice.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶65

the undisputed fact that the petitioners who are plaintiffs Nos.1(a), 1(b), 1(d) and 1(e) have not signed the aforesaid memo seeking dismissal of the suit as withdrawn and settled out of Court, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the suit to the file of the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶66

In the result, the following -

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶69

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.12.2021 is

¶70

hereby set aside.

¶71

(iii) The suit in O.S. No.523/2014 is restored

¶72

to the file of the trial Court.

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10260 WP No. 33746 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

(iv) The petitioners undertake to appear

¶76

before the trial Court on 02.03.2026 without awaiting

¶77

further notice from the trial Court.

¶78

(v) The trial Court shall issue Court notice to

¶79

both the respondents herein and proceed further in

¶80

accordance with law.

¶81

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶82

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Maregowda v. Sri Mariyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maregowda v. Sri Mariyappa

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

Sri P O Vijay Reddy @ Vijayakumar Reddy Vs the President

M/S. Globussoft Vs M/S. Tusker Workspace Private Limited

Mrs. B Shakunthala Vs Mr. Seetharama Shetty

Sri.N. Ravindranath Kamath Vs M/S Popular Auto Works

Suresh Hegde Vs Huchappa

Mr R T Vijay Shankar Vs Sri S Ziaualla