- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27445 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DURGADAS ASRANNA S/O. VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS KASTURBA NURSING HOME S.S.PURAM TUMKURU-572 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERENDRAKUMAR S/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 106 2. RAVIKUMAR S/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT ANANTHARASANAHALLI VILLAGE TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 106 3. SURESH BABU S/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 106 4. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O.LATE DODDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 5. KALAPANA W/O.LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. MEGHANA D/O.LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7. PUNEETH S/O.LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R-4 TO R-7 ARE R/AT R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE ARAKERE POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106 8. SIDDARAJU S/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK-572 106 9. KAMALAMMMA W/O.LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. GEETHA W/O.RUDRESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 11. RAMESH S/O.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 12. NAGESH S/O.LATE SHIVKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 13. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 14. CHITHRASHEKAR S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 15. DINESH S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R-9 TO R-15 ARE R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TQ.-572 106 16. VIJAYAMMA W/O.LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106 17. MANJULA W/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ANANTHARASANAHALLI OPP. KANNAPPA BUILDING TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 106 18. SUMA W/O.KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SINGIPURA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 107 19. YASHODA W/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106 20. RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O.LATE DODDARAMAIAH R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMKURU-572 106 21. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYSORE STRUCTURALS LTD. NO.12, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 052. REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 22. DNS ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ASRANNA KASTURABA BUILDING S.S.PURAM MAIN ROAD TUMKUR-572 102. REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.285/2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-plaintiffs before the trial Court and the co-defendants. 3. This petition is filed by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.285/2006. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of partition and separate possession. The petitioner, who is defendant No.4 is contesting the matter and the pleadings are completed, pursuant to which, the evidence of both the plaintiffs as well as defendants has been recorded and they have been cross- examined. The suit is of the year 2006. In the year 2017, the petitioner/defendant No.4 filed a petition before this Court in WP.12611/2017, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 26.10.2018 by following order: "3. As the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 expeditiously by strictly avoiding unnecessary adjournments, preferably by taking the case on a day-to-day basis, and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition, no order is necessary on I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2017; they stand disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of." 4. As per the order extracted hereinabove, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court also directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to conduct the case on a day-to-day basis. Despite this order having been passed on 26.10.2018, the trial Court has not concluded the proceedings perforcing defendant No.4 to approach this Court once again i.e. during September, 2025 for expeditious disposal on the ground that the respondents in collusion with each other are protracting and prolonging - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 the matter with ulterior motive. It is appalling to see that the trial Court has not heeded to the order of this Court dated 26.10.2018 and even after 7 years, the case is still pending, which is a sorry state of affairs and it sends a wrong message to the litigants to have no trust in the Court. Despite an order passed by this Court, the trial Court does not comply the same or make any effort or endeavour to dispose of the suit if not expeditiously within the stipulated period of three months as stated in the said order. 5. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i) This petition is disposed off; ii) This Court is left with no other option but to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; iii) It is made clear that any unnecessary adjournments or moving of an application will be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40935 WP No. 27445 of 2025 considered stringently by the trial Court and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs on either of the parties for unnecessary adjournments; iv) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40