- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101071 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUVARNA W/O LATE NARASAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI AGE. 47 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. KUMARI ANANYA D/O LATE NARASAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI AGE. 24 YEARS OCC. NIL SINCE SHE IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED PERSON REP. BY HER GUARDIAN SMT.SUVARNA W/O LATE NARASAPPA KANAVALLI PETITIONERS ARE C/O SRI MANOHAR S/O KALLAPPA PATTAR GANESH NIVAS OPP. S S CO-OP BANK JORAPURPET NEAR WATER TANK TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KUSUMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI AGE. 85 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. JAYADEVA NAGAR, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 BEHIND BHAGAVATI HOSPITAL DIST. HAVERI-581110 2. SMT. NETRAVATHI W/O ASHOK PATTAR AGE. 65 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VIVEKANAND NAGAR BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL YARAGATTI TQ. SAVADATTI DIST. BELAGAVI-591129 KUMARI GEETA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI (DIED LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS PER ORDER DATED 25-11-2020) 3. SMT. VIDYA W/O KRISHNA BADIGER AGE. 50 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, 2ND CROSS BEHIND COLLEGE TQ. BYADGI DIST. HAVERI-581106 4. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI AGE. 57 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS R/O. JAYADEVA NAGAR, BEHIND BHAGAVATI HOSPITAL DIST. HAVERI-581110 5. SRI SATISH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA KANAVALLI ALIAS ARKACHARI AGE. 55 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS R/O. JAYADEVA NAGAR, BEHIND BHAGAVATI HOSPITAL DIST. HAVERI-581110 …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HAVERI DT. 12-11-2024 PASSED IN OS.. NO. 121/2019 ON I.A. NO. 8 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW I.A. NO. 8 VIDE ANNEXURE-D BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri dt. 12.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.121/2009 on I.A.No.8 vide Annexure-F and allow I.A.No.8 vide Annexure- D by allowing this writ petition. b. Any other writ or order direction in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Court deems fit including cost in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.121/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge at Haveri seeking for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 two sets of properties were described in ‘A’ Schedule and ‘B’ Schedule separately. ‘A’ Schedule having five items. The plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure abandoning their claim over the Item No.1 to 5 properties described in the Schedule ‘A’. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the other parties to the suit are sharers entitled to a share in the properties. It is challenging the same that the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs having abandoned their claim in ‘A’ Schedule property, the trial Court could consider the partition of the ‘B’ Schedule properties and partition ‘A’ Schedule properties among the other sharers and as such, the application could not have been entirely dismissed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 but the submission of the plaintiffs ought to have been taken on record. 5. Heard Sri. N. P. Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused papers. 6. Having gone through the order passed by the trial Court, what the trial Court has essentially held is that the abandonment of the plaintiffs' claim over Item No.1 to 5 properties described in ‘A’ Schedule cannot deprive the other sharers of their rights and it is on that basis that the application has been dismissed. The order does not in any manner indicate that the abandonment of the plaintiffs has not been considered. The plaintiffs having unconditionally abandoned their rights in Item No.1 to 5 properties of the ‘A’ Schedule, the said abandonment would have to be considered at the time of drawing up of the preliminary decree and cannot be considered at the stage of the filing of the application. While - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2914 WP No. 101071 of 2025 drawing up of the preliminary decree, the trial Court would naturally look into the aspect of the sharers who are entitled to the share in Item No.1 to 5 properties of ‘A’ Schedule taking into consideration the abandonment made by the plaintiffs. If the other parties to the suit were also to give up their rights in the A Schedule property the court could take note of the same and proceed with the matter. As such, I am of the considered opinion that there is no grievance which could be made out by the plaintiffs in respect of the said impugned order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31