- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16572 WP No. 103845 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103845 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI SHANKAR S/O. MALLAPA HONAWADE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PARAMANANDWADI-591311, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITA W/O. APPASAHEB BADORE, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, NOW AT JERE PLOT, SHANTI NAGAR, ATHANI-591304, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI SUKUMAR S/O. APPASAHEB BADORE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.05 10:52:31 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16572 WP No. 103845 of 2023 AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PARAMANANDWADI, TALAUK: RAIBAG, NOW AT JERE PLOT, SHANTI NAGAR, ATHANI-591304, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI SUNILKUMAR S/O. APPASAHEB BADORE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PARAMANANDWADI, TALAUK: RAIBAG, NOW AT JERE PLOT, SHANTI NAGAR, ATHANI-591304, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: RAIBAG IN MISC. PETITION NO.7/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16572 WP No. 103845 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2022 recalling the order dismissing the final decree proceeding for default. 2. The contention is that the application is filed after 10 years from the date of dismissal for default. 3. It is not in dispute that the preliminary decree which has attained finality is not taken to its logical end by filing final decree proceeding. The Apex Court in Venu v. Ponnusamy Reddiar (Dead) through LRs and another1 has held that there is no limitation to file final decree proceeding. 4. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous so as to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the property after the preliminary decree was passed. The petitioner 1 2017 SCCR 645 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16572 WP No. 103845 of 2023 is entitled to seek necessary relief in the final decree proceeding as advised in law. 6. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35