- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7190 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA, SICE DEAD BY LR'S. 1. SRI REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAYYA. 2. SMT. NEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNIYAYYA. 3. SRI BASAVANNA,. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAYYA. 4. SMT. GAYATHRI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNIYAYYA, 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNIYAYYA, 6. SMT. KEMPAMMA @ JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, D/O. LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH. 7. SRI RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAGARAJU. 8. SRI RAJU, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAGARAJU. 9. SMT. CHENNABASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 9 ARE R/AT KELLAMBALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NANJAMMANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. MAHADEVAPPA, R/AT MARIYALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. 2. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONE OFFICE, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.C. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN M.A.NO.07/2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE MEMO DATED 10.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ON ITS FILE AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.120/2023, which is filed for relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit proceedings, the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed IA.No.IV under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to direct respondent No.2-defendant No.2 to deposit the compensation amount in any nationalized Bank. Upon hearing the said application, the trial Court rejected the same vide order dated 13.08.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners- plaintiffs preferred an appeal in MA.No.7/2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 4. After completion of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs has filed a memo seeking dismissal of the appeal before the Appellate Court as not pressed. The memo to that effect has been filed on 10.12.2024 and the same is produced at Annexure-G. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Appellate Court instead of dismissing the appeal as not pressed in view of the memo filed by the petitioners, had dismissed the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and further passed an order by providing liberty to defendant No.1 to take all the compensation amount awarded in respect of the acquisition of the suit property from defendant No.2 and to file proper application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the trial Court is at liberty to consider the same, without influenced by that order of the Appellate Court and imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to defendant No.1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that once the petitioners have filed a memo seeking dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, that would mean they do not want to continue or prosecute the appeal against the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the appeal as not pressed rather than dismissing the appeal on merits. Further, the Appellate Court has also granted reliefs, which is not sought for by the respondents-defendants and the same is unwarranted. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that there was no need for the Appellate Court to provide liberty to defendant No.1 to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which was not even sought for by her. Hence, the Appellate Court has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 exceeded its jurisdiction by providing liberty to the respondents-defendants and also proceeded further to pass orders on the merits of the matter even though the petitioners-plaintiffs did not want to proceed further in the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who is present before the Court fairly admits that he had not sought any relief with regard to liberty to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Nevertheless, he also agrees the fact that the petitioners have filed a memo seeking dismissal of the appeal prior to passing of the order by the Appellate Court. 10. Therefore, without going into the details of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41432 WP No. 7190 of 2025 ii. The impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed in M.A.No.7/2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, is hereby set aside in its entirety, including the cost; iii. Parties are at liberty to proceed with the suit in accordance with law; iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81 CT: BHK