Disposed¶49

Sri. D. P. Agarwal v. Smt. Anandamma. R. M.

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/39519/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound completion directive; expedited disposal of partition suit; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; pendency since 2009; plaintiff-side evidence stage after 17 years; delay caused by multiple interlocutory applications; one-year deadline from production of certified copy; Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and JMFC Devanahalli; O.S.No.640/2009; defendant-aged-petitioner seeking speedy trial; KIADB among respondents.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to conclude O.S.No.640/2009 within one year from the date of production of a copy of this order; notice to respondents dispensed with. ¶49

Sri. D. P. Agarwal Vs Smt. Anandamma. R. M. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18409 WP No. 39519 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 39519 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D. P. AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19, PALAM MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057. OFFICE NO. 69, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 32, GURGAON-122001. REP. BY GPA HOLDER, PRAVEEN VILASNAGE

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. ANANDAMMA. R. M. D/O MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶14

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562135

¶15

SRI MUNISWAMAIAH D/O MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:18409 WP No. 39519 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 562135

¶20

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS. RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562135

¶21

SRI OBALESH S/O MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS. RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562135

¶22

SMT. CHIKKA MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE EARAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS. RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562135

¶23

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18409 WP No. 39519 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

DEVANAHALLI, IN O.S.NO. 640/2009 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONERS CASE WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD OF THREE (3) MONTHS.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This writ petition by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.640/2009 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and JMFC at Devanahalli. The suit is for partition.

¶32

It is submitted that though the suit was instituted in the year 2009, the suit is still at the stage of recording evidence of plaintiff and the suit is unnecessarily delayed taking advantage of the age of the petitioner.

¶33

Sri Sirajin Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that considering that the suit for partition is pending from 2009, the same is at the stage of recording the evidence of the plaintiff and the petitioner is

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:18409 WP No. 39519 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

aged 76 years, he prayed to direct the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶38

Considering the direction, this Court is to pass

¶39

notice to respondents, is dispensed with.

¶40

Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the order sheet in O.S.No.640/2009 maintained by the trial Court, this Court notices that the multiple applications are being filed at various stages, and the same has resulted in delay in adjudication of the suit.

¶41

However, the trial Court has only reached the stage of recording the evidence of the plaintiff after 17 years, this Court finds no justification in delaying the suit. The delay may be caused by any of the parties. However, it is for the trial Court to expedite the conclusion of the trial.

¶42