- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19385 WP No. 13060 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13060 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHI, W/O LATE B.R. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT. B.M. RASHMI, D/O LATE B.R. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. SMT. B.M. RATHAN, S/O LATE B.R. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BIDAROOR VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. M.C. GEETHA, W/O SRI. S.V. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDAROOR VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19385 WP No. 13060 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET IN R.A.NO.24/2023 WHEREBY THE LEARNED COURT HAS DISMISSED THE I.A.NO. 1/2023, UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 5 READ SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AND STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03/11/2023, PASSED IN O.S.NO.48/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SOMVARPETE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE R.A.NO.24/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3, are now calling in question an order dated 17.04.2025 by which the application filed by the petitioners i.e., I.A.No.1/2023 seeking stay of the order in judgement and decree passed by the concerned Court in O.S.No.48/2016. The said application is rejected by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2023 by the following order: "The appellant has filed the application under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC to stay the execution of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19385 WP No. 13060 of 2025 judgment and order in O.S.No.48/2016 dated 3-11-2023 on the file of Civil Judge, Somwarpete. 2. The respondent not filed objection to the application. 3. Heard arguments, perused the records. 4. Following point arise for the consideration of this court. Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application? 5. The findings of this court to the above point is in the Negative for the following- REASONS 6. Originally respondent was filed the suit against the appellant for the relief of declaration and recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.48/2016 that suit had been partly decreed. Thereafter appellant was filed this appeal before this court on dated 04-12-2023 against respondent for set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.48/2016. After appearance of the respondent this court called the TCR from trial court. Though TCR has been received on dated 16-1-2024 thereafter posted for arguments on merits. Since from the date of received TCR appellant not argue on appeal. Now after lapse of more than one year appellant come up with this application and prays to stay the further proceedings of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.48/2016 on dated 3-11-2023. If in this circumstances this application is allowed respondent will put great hardship and irreparable loss other than appellant. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following- O R D E R The application filed by the defendant under order XLI rule 5 of CPC is rejected." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19385 WP No. 13060 of 2025 2. A perusal at the order so passed is indicative of the fact that what has weighed in the mind of the First Appellate Court is that the application was filed by the petitioners on 03.11.2023 and it is not been moved for a long time and it is only moved in the year 2024. Therefore, it would not merit consideration. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application seeking stay of the judgement and decree does not inspire a semblance of confidence as there is no reason rendered on the merit of the matter except the statement that the Trial Court records were called for. The petitioners are not willing to argue the matter on its merit and now after lapse of more than one year, the appellants have come up with the application seeking stay of further proceedings of judgement and decree in O.S.No.48/2016. 3. In the light of the order impugned being perfunctory and laconic, I deem it appropriate to set-aside the same and remit the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19385 WP No. 13060 of 2025 4. It is made clear that the Court has not considered or pronounced upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners or the respondent. 5. The consideration of the application shall happen within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the consideration of the application should not become a ruse to drag the proceedings. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33