Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

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

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri. D. P. Agarwal Vs Smt. ChikkamuniyammaSri. D. P. Agarwal v. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma

Disposed¶48

Sri. D. P. Agarwal v. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 – Writ Petition (GM-CPC)

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026WP/39668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 (GM-CPC), NC: 2026:KHC:18818, WP No. 39668 of 2025, decided 07.04.2026 by H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. Petitioner D. P. Agarwal, defendant No. 6 in O.S. No. 666/2008 (partition and separate possession suit of 2008 before Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli), sought mandamus for disposal within six months. Court declined to fix six months and instead directed expeditious disposal not later than one year from receipt of copy of order, conditional on no stay by any court; writ petition disposed of, no merits opinion. No precedents cited; no impugned order challenged.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court in O.S. No. 666/2008 to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from receipt of a copy of the order, subject to there being no stay of the proceedings by any court; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Why is it important?

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 666/2008 as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided there is no order of stay granted on the proceedings by any court; the six-month timeline sought in the petition was thus not granted as prayed. ¶47

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Trial Court in O.S. No. 666/2008 to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from receipt of a copy of the order, subject to there being no stay of the proceedings by any court; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli to consider Annexure-A and dispose of O.S. No. 666/2008 within a fixed period of six months.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 666/2008 as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided there is no order of stay granted on the proceedings by any court; the six-month timeline sought in the petition was thus not granted as prayed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 — Writ Petition (GM-CPC) — petitioner, defendant No. 6 in O.S. No. 666/2008, a suit for partition and separate possession of the year 2008 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Trial Court to consider Annexure-A and dispose of the case within six months — Held: without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided there is no order of stay granted on the proceedings by any court — Writ petition disposed of (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.).

A

NC: 2026:KHC:18818 WP No. 39668 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 39668 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. D. P. AGARWAL S/O. LATE P.D. AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19, PALAM MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 057.

OFFICE NO. 69, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 32, GURGAON 122001.

REPRESENTED BY PRAVEEN VILAS NAGE SPA HOLDER

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA D/O. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKAGULLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI AND POST, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

SMT. THIMAKKA W/O. VENKATRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18818 WP No. 39668 of 2025

HC-KAR

SMT. DODDATHIMAKKA D/O. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBILE HOBLI,

HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 129.

MUNIYAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

CHIKKMUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

MUNISWAMAIAH S/O. LAYE EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

BOTH 5 AND 6 RESPONDENTS RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NO.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

&RESPONDENTS

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HON9BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN O.S NO.666/2008 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18818 WP No. 39668 of 2025

HC-KAR

PETITIONER9S CASE WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant no. 6 has

sought the following relief:

Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the Honourable Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.666/2008 to consider Annexure-A and dispose of the petitioner's case within a fixed period of six months.

ii. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for partition and

separate possession in OS.No.666/2008. On appearance, petitioner/defendant No.6 has filed a written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court has framed the issues. Till today, the suit is not disposed of.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18818 WP No. 39668 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the suit is of the year 2008, the plaintiff is dragging the matter for one or the other reason. Hence, he sought for early disposal of the suit.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not later than one(1) year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order provided that there is no order of stay granted on the said proceedings by any Court of law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

BN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli to consider Annexure-A and dispose of O.S. No. 666/2008 within a fixed period of six months.¶38
The court held
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 666/2008 as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided there is no order of stay granted on the proceedings by any court; the six-month timeline sought in the petition was thus not granted as prayed.ratio¶47

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Plaintiff/respondent instituted O.S. No. 666/2008, a suit for partition and separate possession, before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli; the suit remains undisposed.¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appeared as defendant No. 6 and filed a written statement; the Trial Court framed issues on the pleadings; the suit has not been disposed of till the date of the writ petition.¶41

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI. D. P. AGARWAL S/O. LATE P.D. AGARWAL¶9
SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA
respondent
SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA D/O. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA¶16
respondent
SMT. THIMAKKA W/O. VENKATRAMAPPA¶17
respondent
SMT. DODDATHIMAKKA D/O. MUNISWAMAPPA¶20
respondent
MUNIYAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA¶22
respondent
CHIKKMUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE EARAPPA¶23
respondent
MUNISWAMAIAH S/O. LAYE EARAPPA¶24
respondent
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER¶26

Coram

AI extract

H.T. Narendra Prasadauthor¶33

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 7 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 30 Dec 2025
Case no.: WP/39668/2025
CNR: KAHC010845402025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: H.t. Narendra Prasad
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from H.t. Narendra Prasad

Sri S R Sanjivamurthy, Vs Smt. S N Shree Mala
6 Apr 2026
Smt. K R Manjula, Vs Smt. Sujatha B P
6 Apr 2026
M P Ramesh Vs M Vasantha
6 Apr 2026
Srinivasa Vs T.M. Geetha
7 Apr 2026
Shalimar Incense Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Nitin Kanji Shah HUF
7 Apr 2026
Deutsche Bank a G Vs M/S West Inn Bangalore Private Ltd.
7 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri. D. P. Agarwal v. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, WP/39668/2025 (KA), decided on 7 April 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Plaintiff/respondent instituted O.S. No. 666/2008, a suit for partition and separate possession, before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli; the suit remains undisposed.
Petitioner appeared as defendant No. 6 and filed a written statement; the Trial Court framed issues on the pleadings; the suit has not been disposed of till the date of the writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

H.T. Narendra Prasad

Parties & counsel