- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 46190 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S.K. KALAVATHI W/O SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 4TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR TUMAKURU CITY-572 101 NOW PRESENTLY R/AT NO.648 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH GOUDA FOR SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T.R. JAYANNA W/O SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O SRI. T.R. JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 3. SMT. KALAVATHI D/O SRI. T.R. JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 4. SMT. ARUNAKSHAMMA D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 5. SRI. NAGARAJU D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 6. SRI. DHARMAIAH D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 7. SRI. UMESH D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION ALASETTIKEREPALYA BANASHANKARI EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY-572 101 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 8. SRI. A. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE ANJIANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT DEVEERAPALLI VILLAGE DEVEERAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE-635 103 9(A). SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA SINCE DIED REPRESENTED BY ITS LRS SRI. T.B. ANANTHAKUMAR S/O SRI. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SEEBITHOTA, BEHIND TUMAKURU AMANIKERE TUMAKURU CITY-572 101 9(B) SRI. T. TULASIDEVI W/O SRI. VENKACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. C/O NAGANNA BUILDING DOOR NO.695, GANESHA SAW MILL ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057 9(C). SMT. T.B. KAMALA W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.322, NEAR SHIVAJI DEPOT 1ST MAIN ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057 9(D). SRI. B.T. LOKESH S/O SRI. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DASANAPALYA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560 090 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. MADHUSUDAN FOR SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8; R9(B) - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 R9(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.100/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "1. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ to quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 in Civil Misc.No.100/2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru as per Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to grant under circumstances of the above writ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 petition, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard. 3. Sri Ganesh Gouda, Advocate appearing for Sri Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner has filed OS No.268/2006 seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.05.1998. It is submitted that one Smt.Puttalakshmamma has also filed a suit for specific performance in OS No.162/2000 and knowing the same, the petitioner has filed an application in Civil Misc. No.100/2016 seeking for transfer of OS 162/2000 pending on the file of Principal Sr.Civil Judge (S.D),Tumakuru and OS No.268/2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru to any one of the Courts by allowing the petition. However, the same came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 4. Per contra, Sri M. Madhusudan, learned counsel for Sri V.Viswanath Setty, learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 respondent Nos.2 to 8 submits that the suit filed by Smt.Puttalakshmamma in OS No.162/2000 came to be dismissed on 28.06.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs [R9(c) and R9(d)] of Smt.Puttalakshmamma filed RA No.103/2023 and the said appeal was allowed and judgment and decree dated 28.06.2023 passed in OS No.162/2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded for limited purpose. He submits that in view of the dismissal of the suit and later remand by the appellate Court in RA No.103/2023, the present petition would not survive for consideration. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 6. The petitioner filed an application in Civil Misc. No.100/2016 under Section 22 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Principal District Judge, Tumkuru seeking to transfer OS No.162/2000 pending on the file of Principal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21770 WP No. 46190 of 2019 Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru and OS No.268/2006 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru to any one of the Courts to decide both the cases together to avoid conflicting decisions. 7. However, it is pointed out that OS No.162/2000 came to be dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs of original plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.103/2023 which came to be allowed on 25.01.2025 and the matter came to be remanded to the trail Court to reconsider the same on certain issues. 8. In my considered view, in view of the subsequent developments and the remand by the appellate Court, the present petition would not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15