- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 18555 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . A. AMARNATH S/O LATE AJJA REDDY AGED 57 YEARS 2 . SRIDHARA S/O LATE AJJA REDDY AGED 56 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN-560 105. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MALLA REDDY B.V., ADV.) AND: 1 . SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE B NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SINCE DEAD LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 2 . BHARATHI D/O B NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3 . GEETHA D/O B NAGARAJ - 2 - AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4 . GAYATHRI D/O B NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5 . MANJUNATHA S/O B NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.116 4TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 6 . SMT SHAMALA W/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO G-9/7 P N T QUARTERS KAVALABAIRASANDRA R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560032 7 . S R KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMASHASTRY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 8 . SURYA PRAKASH S/O S R KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9 . RAMA PRASAD S/O S R KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 10 . SMT UMA W/O R S VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 10 ARE LRS OF LATE NAGARAJ R/AT S AGRAHARA MATANA HALLI POST VIA KOLAR - 3 - PIN – 563101 11 . B N PRASAD S/O B S NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS WORKING IN KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SILK MANUFACTURING FEDERATION AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE – 560002. 12 . JAYABHARATHI W/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 13 . SHIVAKUMAR J S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT KEMPAPURA KOPPA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 14 . CHANDAN KUMAR J S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN- 560105 15 . LOHITH KUMAR J S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 16 . NARASIMHA REDDY FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED MAJOR - 4 - 17 . DEVANTH REDDY S/O NARASIMHA REDDY AGED MAJOR 18 . JAGANNATHA REDDY @ JAGGU S/O NARASIMHA REDDY AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 18 ARE R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 19 . SMT PUSHPA S/O NARASIMHA REDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 20 . RAMAKKA W/O MUNIAPPA AGED MAJOR 21 . M VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA AGED MAJOR 22 . M RAJAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA AGED MAJOR 23 . M SUNANDAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA AGED MAJOR 24 . LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 25 . MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA - 5 - AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLY ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN – 560105 26 . SUSHEELAMMA W/O SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO 44 6TH CROSS 8TH MAIN MOUNT CARMEL ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 27 . RATHNAMMA W/O NARAYANPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT CHUNCHAGATTA UTTHARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH - 560061 28 . MANJULA W/O NARAYANA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO 54 21ST CROSS 16TH MAIN BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560076 29 . SUSHEELA W/O NAGARAJ AGED MAJOR R/AT NO 123/A N S PALYA 21ST CROSS 7TH MAIN BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560076 30 . SRINIVASA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/A JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 - 6 - 31 . SAMPANGI RAMA @ SAMPANGI S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 32 . MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/A JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 33 . CHINNAPPA S/O PERASAPPA MAJOR R/A JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 34 . CHINNANNA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR EGIPURA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560047 35 . N PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS WORKING IN JAYACHAMARAJENDRA POLYTECHNIC, K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001 AND RESIDING IN PORTION OF NO.106 IV MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018 36 . SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O N PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/A NO.106, 4TH MAIN ROAD CHAMRAJPET - 7 - BANGALORE-560018 37 . GUDDA MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR R/O JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 38 . SMT RAMAKKA @ SAMPANGAMMA FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED MAJOR R/A NO.K165, JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 39 . THIPPAMMA D/O LATE KADRI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 103 YEARS R/A JIGANI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK PIN-560105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5; V/O DT:16.09.2022 NOTICE TO R-6 TO R-39 – D/W; R1-DEAD) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED ON IA NO.14 IN O.S.NO.1469/181 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-17) AND SPL. JUDGE AT BENGALRU BY A WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPOPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION IA NO.14 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 8 - CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the orders dated 09-09-2022 passed on I.A.No. 14 & 13 in O.S.No. 1469/1981 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17) and consequently allow the same. 2. The Petitioners no.1 and 2 herein are the Defendants no. 7(b) and 7(a) respectively before the trial court. Respondents No. 1 to 5 herein are the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 respectively before the Trial Court. Respondents No. 6 to 39 herein are defendants before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Respondents 1 to 5 herein being plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 1469/1981 for partition against the defendants including one Mr. Ajja Reddy, the father of the petitioners herein. The Plaintiffs had claimed the reliefs such as partition of plaintiff’s 18/36th share in the schedule properties, to declare that the partition deed dated - 9 - 15.06.1975 between defendants I and II is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs, to declare alienations made by defendants I and II either jointly or individually in favour of defendants III to IX and X and alienations made by defendants in favour of Muniyappa @ Gidda muniyappa to Thippanna who in turn sold to Ramakka @ Sampangamma are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and their shares and injuction permanently restraining defendants from alienating the schedule properties among the other reliefs. The petitioners’ father has filed a written statement denying the claims of the plaintiffs and contended that the plaintiffs are not the wife and children of Defendant No.1 and also contended that the Defendant no.7 has purchased the suit item No.6 of the Schedule Properties under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1973. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.7 died on 02.08.2013 leaving behind the petitioners herein. Since the defendant no.7 was taking care of the case, the petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the suit. - 10 - After the receipt of the notices of LR application, on verification of the records, the petitioners came to know that the plaintiffs have filed the applications under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC to bring in the LRs of the Defendant No.7 on record and to set aside the abetment order and also to condone the delay in filing the LR application. After several hearings, the plaintiffs have taken substituted service by way of paper publication against the LRs of Defendant No.6(a) on 30.05.2022. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for appearance of the LRs of the defendant No. 6(a) and then for further evidence of defendants if any to 18-07-2022. On the said 18-07-2022, the trial Court placed the LRs of defendant no.6(a) ex-parte and the office of the trial court was directed to prepare the index and the said case was posted to 26-07-2022 for arguments on merits. On 17-08-2022, the defendants no.7(a) and (b) petitioners herein have filed I.A No. 13 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, praying to recall the order dated 08-10-2021 for adducing their evidence and - 11 - also I.A.No. 14 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case to enable the petitioners to adduce their evidence. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides, rejected the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court. 4. Heard counsels on both sides. Respondent no.1 is dead and notices were served to Respondents no.6 to 39. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Trial Court has failed to look into the record that after the death of the Defendant No. 7, the petitioners have come on record very recently in the said suit before the Trial Court and they came to know about the suit proceedings only when they were served with notices on LR application and further after allowing the LR application, no suit summons were issued to the petitioners in the said suit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the following portion of the Trial Court Order: - 12 - “Advocate for Defendant No.3(a) to (b) submit that no evidence. Claimant No. 6a-2 and 6b-3 called out absent. Placed ex-parte. Office is directed to prepare the index. For Arguments by 26-07-2022.” 7. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioners have not been given an opportunity to lead their evidence. 8. It was further contended that the trial court has erred in not considering the reasons assigned by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of I.A No. 13 & 14, that on the account of their ill-health, they could not adduce their evidence and the trial Court has not passed a speaking order and therefore liable to be set aside. 9. It is further contended that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the Defendant no.7 is the bonafide purchaser of the item no. 6 of suit schedule properties and the petitioners are not given an opportunity to adduce their evidence. 10. It was also contended that the trial court has grossly erred in observing that the applications are filed in - 13 - belated dates only with an intention to protract the proceedings. 11. It can be observed from the impugned order i.e., on I.A.No.14, that defendant no.7 sought time to lead evidence on 22.04.2009 and 24.04.2009 and the court had rejected the said adjournment application filed by defendant no.7 and then the case was posted for evidence of LRs of defendants no.6 and 13. 12. It can be further observed from the impugned order that the defendants did not come forward to lead their evidence and thus the case was posted for arguments on 06.08.2014. On 13.10.2014 the defendant no.7 i.e., father of the LRs of defendant no.7 came with similar application before this court for permitting to lead his evidence in the above case and the same was allowed on costs and subsequently defendants No.3 and 7 have passed away and the LRs were brought on record. On 21.09.2021, the legal heirs of defendant no.6 have led their evidence and closed their side. Then the case was posted to 08.02.2021 for the other defendant’s evidence if - 14 - any again the legal heirs of defendant no.7 and others have remained absent and therefore the evidence was taken as nil. On 18.07.2022 when the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence, the legal heirs of the defendant no.7 were not present and then closed the defendants’ evidence. 13. Ultimately, as the legal heirs of the defendants did not avail the opportunity, though the sufficient opportunity was given, the trial court rejected the I.A. No. 14. 14. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on perusal of the material on record and impugned Order passed by the trial Court, no doubt there are latches on the part of the petitioners before the trial Court on adjudicating the suit proceedings. The trial Court has rightly considered and rejected the I.A. However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court intends to interfere and set aside the impugned Order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1469/1981. - 15 - 15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Order dated 09.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.14 and 13 in O.S.No.1469/1981 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17), is set aside. 16. Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) before the trial Court, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this Order. b) On such receipt of amount, the trial Court has to fix the date to lead the evidence of the petitioners herein. c) The trial Court has to dispose of the main suit within a period of six months after the completion of the evidence of the petitioners herein. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv - 16 - Dr.KMRJ: 19.09.2025 ORDER By Order dated 16.09.2022, this Court granted stay subject to depositing a sum o Rs.50,000/- before this Court and the same has been deposited by the petitioners and kept in fixed deposit as ordered. The petitioners are directed to deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- before the trial Court, as per the final Order in this petition and shall produce the receipt before this Court. On production of receipt for payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-, the Registry is directed to refund the sum of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioners before this Court and kept in fixed deposit, to the petitioners. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV