Sri P Ramanjinappa Vs Sri Muniyappa

SRI P. RAMANJINAPPA, S/O. LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KAIVALYA NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, PAPAIAH LAYOUT, NEAR DEVAMATHA CENTRAL SCHOOL, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶14

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

¶15

SMT BYAMMA 3^RD W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/OF BIDARALLI VILLAGE, BIDARALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 049.

¶16

SMT. ANITHA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.72/2, MARENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 078

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. KAMALA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/OF DODDURU VILLAGE, KARAPPANAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 162.

¶21

SMT. RAMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/OF UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 211.

¶22

SMT. RUKKAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶23

SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶24

SRI AVINASH S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶25

SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED 28 YEARS,

¶26

SMT. MANJULA D/O RUKKAMMA AGED 49 YEARS,

¶27

SMT SUJATHA D/O RUKKAMMA AGED 47 YEARS,

¶28

SRI LOKESH S/O RUKKAMMA AGED 45 YEARS,

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

5 TO 10 ALL ARE R/OF: BIDARAHALLI VILALGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶33

SRI SAMPANGIRAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶34

SMT. LASKHMAMMA, W/O LATE SRI SAMPANGI RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SRI A. C. MUNIRAJ, D/O LATE SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAYYA AGED 49 YEARS

¶36

SRI B S RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE SRI SAMPANGI RAMAYYA AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶37

SRI B S ANANDA S/O LATE SRI SAMPANGI RAMAYYA AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶38

SMT. NAGAVENI W/O SRI K RAVIKUAMR D/O LATE SRI SAMPANGI RAMAYYA AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶39

RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 15 ARE R/AT NO.220, BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 049.

¶40

SRI ANJANAPPA S/O LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶41

SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

SRI RAMESH S/O LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶46

SRI NARAYANAPP, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶47

SRI APPAJAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA 1^ST WIFE LATE LAXMAMMA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶48

SMT RAMAKKA 2^ND W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶49

RESPONDENT 16 TO 20 ARE R/OF BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶50

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O KEMPANNA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, THROUGH HIS 2^ND WIFE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NAGARENAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR POST, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 129.

¶51

SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, THROUGH HIS 2^ND WIFE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶52

SRI RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, THROUGH HIS 2^ND WIFE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶53

RESPONDENT NO.22 AND 23 ARE R/OF BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI,

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶58

SRI GOPALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶59

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE SRI GOPALAPPA AGED 60 YEARS

¶60

SRI B G UMESH S/O LATE SRI GOPALAPPA AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶61

SRI B G ANAND S/O LATE SRI GOPALAPPA AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶62

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶63

SMT KRISHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶64

RESPONDENT NO.24 TO 28 ARE R/OF BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶65

…RESPONDENTS

¶66

(BY SRI. SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATES FOR C/R1 TO R10)

¶67

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 04.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A., FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, SEEKING TO TAKE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ON RECORD DATED 01.08.2025, IN O.S. NO. 1655/2006, BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.,

¶68

6 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶73

ORAL ORDER

¶74

This petition by defendant No.9 in O.S.No.1655/2006 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.11.2025, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner – defendant No.9 seeking permission to file written statement by condoning the delay was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶75

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶76

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 10- LR’s of plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The petitioner, who is a pendente lite – lis pendens purchaser of Item No.6 of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not initially file the written statement. Subsequently, after the plaintiff got his plaint amended on 05.02.2025, the defendant filed the instant application seeking permission to file written statement

¶77

7 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not filed written statement due diligently within the prescribed period and no explanation was offered by the petitioner as regards non filing of written statement. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that neither cogent nor proper reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application and the Trial Court has taken into account the affidavit in support of the application and opined that no reasons were assigned by the petitioner to seek condonation of delay. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to enable petitioner file better affidavit, the petitioner would do so and file application afresh in accordance with law.

¶81

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶82

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

¶83

though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that the Trial Court has rejected the instant application on the ground that

¶84

8 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

valid/ sufficient grounds/cause was not made out by the petitionerplaintiff to seek condonation of delay in filing the written statement. However, in view of the specific assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, petitioner would file better affidavit in support of the application, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contention in condonation of delay, by adopting justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of application afresh in accordance with law.

¶88

In the result, I pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i) The petition is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶91

ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.1655/2006 on I.A. filed by the petitioner on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶92

9 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:109 WP No. 37289 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

iii) The matter is remitted back to the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru for reconsideration of application afresh in accordance with law.

¶96

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶97

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri P Ramanjinappa v. Sri Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Ramanjinappa v. Sri Muniyappa

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

M/S S.R.S Travels and Logistics Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

D.V Constructions Vs Union of India

Sri Syed Khaleel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramakrishnaiah Vs Sri. Shivashankaraiah

Smt. Sowmya Vs Sri. P. G. Sreehari

Sri K R Venkatesh Rao Vs Sri Mohan