Allowed

Sri. Michel Raj, v. Smt. Kantha Chandra

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026WP/39010/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Writ Petition under Article 227 quashing the order of the Trial Court which dismissed an application under Section 152 r/w 151 CPC. The HC held the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application to correct clerical errors in the Commissioner's Report and final decree where all parties were agreeable. The HC directed the Registry to draw a fresh final decree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application under Section 152 r/w 151 CPC allowed; Registry directed to draw fresh final decree.

Sri. Michel Raj, Vs Smt. Kantha Chandra — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9984 WP No. 39010 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39010 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MICHEL RAJ, AGED 36 YEARS S/O LATE D. HARRY R/AT C/O R. T. JOHN, NEAR DCF QUARTERS, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. KANTHA CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS II BLOCK, NEAR BDA COMPLEX LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 084

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. ELONGA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS II BLOCK, NEAR BDA COMPLEX LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 084

¶15

SRI. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS II BLOCK, NEAR BDA COMPLEX LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 084

¶16

SMT. REKHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS II BLOCK, NEAR BDA COMPLEX LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 084

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMI AGED 64 YEARS II BLOCK,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:9984 WP No. 39010 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NEAR BDA COMPLEX LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 084

¶22

SMT. SHAILA AGED 43 YEARS R/AT NO.7, KIRANGOOR VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA, TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401

¶23

SMT. SHEELA AGED 31 YEARS R/AT NO.7, KIRANGOOR VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA, TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401

¶24

UDAY SHANKAR AGED 38 YEARS R/AT NO.7, KIRANGOOR VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA, TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 401

¶25

SMT. VEENA RANI W/O RADHA KRISHNA D/O SMT. LATE D.SHARDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶26

SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE D. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶27

SRI. KEERTHI KUMAR S/O LATE D.SHARDA RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO. 18/17 (A), NEAR KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201

¶28

SMT. ARABUDA MARY, AGED 70 YEARS WIFE OF LATE D. HARRY

¶29

SRI. ANTHONY DAS, AGED 49 YEARS S/O LATE D. HARRY

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:9984 WP No. 39010 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI. ROBERT VINCENT, AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE D. HARRY

¶34

SMT. THERESA HELEN, AGED 45 YEARS D/O LATE D. HARRY

¶35

SMT. MAGDALINA, AGED 38 YEARS D/O LATE D. HARRY

¶36

RESPONDENTS 12 TO 16 ARE R/AT C/O R.T.JOHN, NEAR DCF QUARTERS, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MADIKERI, IN FDP NO. 13/2016, DISMISSING THE I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 152 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC (ANNEXURE- A).

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

This petition by petitioner No.6 in FDP No.13/2016 is directed

¶44

against the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, hwereby teh application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 R/w. Section 151 CPC seeking correction of the Commissioner’s Report was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:9984 WP No. 39010 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

¶49

the material on record.

¶50

For the order proposed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶51

A perusal of the material on record in the aforesaid final decree proceedings pursuant to the Commissioner’s Report, the Trial Court passed final decree, pursuant to which there were errors in the Commissioner’s Report, which had formed the part and parcel of the final decree and accordingly, sought for correction in the final decree.

¶52

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that the mistake/error in the Commissioner’s Report, which led to corresponding mistake/error in the final decree was due to oversight and inadvertence and on account of typographical errors and since all parties were ad idem, the Trial Court fell in error in rejecting the application and no prejudice would have caused to the respondents if the application was allowed.

¶53

In the result, I pass the following:

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:9984 WP No. 39010 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed on the application filed under Section 152 r/w. Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.13/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Madikeri, is hereby set aside.

¶60

(iii) Consequently, the application filed under Section 152 r/w. Section 151 of CPC is allowed.

¶61

(iv) Registry of the Trial Court is directed to draw fresh final decree, in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶63

BMC List No.: 4 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Michel Raj, v. Smt. Kantha Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Michel Raj, v. Smt. Kantha Chandra

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

Smt. Tara Bai Vs Sri. Jeevan H H

Sri Tajammul Pasha Vs Smt Shakira Sultana

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., Vs M/S. Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Sri Rudresh Raju G Vs Smt. Yashodamma

Sri R Prakash Vs Sri M Srinivasan

K P Jayanthi Prasad Vs Chethan K S