- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38592 WP No. 31441 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 31441 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M.RAJANNA, SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI PILLAPPAIAH, SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT: BHATTARAMARENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI MOHAN.M, SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38592 WP No. 31441 of 2024 2. SMT.AKKAYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. SRI VIJAY.M, SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT: BHATTARAMARENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. 4. SMT SHANTHAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE MARIYAPPA @ MYLANAHALLI MARIYAPPA, WIFE OF SRI D.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT N.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, BYLANARASAPURA POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 122. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2024 MADE IN O.S.NO.1005/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION, (B) GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS.NO.1005/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38592 WP No. 31441 of 2024 CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER List has been revised. No one appears to press this petition. 2. This petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 01.10.2024 made in OS No.1005/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, passed on IA No.9 filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 151 thereof. 3. The petitioners are the defendant Nos. 2 & 4 respectively. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on 24.08.2022 seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. IA No.9 was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 2 & 4, who had prayed for a direction to strike out the names of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38592 WP No. 31441 of 2024 defendant Nos. 1 & 5 from the plaint. The IA.9 was supported by an affidavit, in which it was stated that there was a compromise decree that had taken place between the erstwhile joint family members consisting of the plaintiff, defendants and others. Item Nos. 4 to 11 of the suit schedule properties had exclusively fallen to the share of the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 & 4 and defendant No.3 as well as their deceased father and ever since they alone are in joint possession of the same. It is stated that, under the compromise decree, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 in the instant suit had received a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh as full and final settlement in lieu of share which was relinquished in favour of the plaintiff, defendants No.2 & 4 and the defendant No.3 and as such, the defendant Nos.1 & 5 did not acquire any title over the said properties in any manner. 4. By the impugned order, IA.9 came to be rejected holding that, in the present application (IA.9), the Court cannot hold a mini trial to decide the rights of the parties over the suit schedule properties. Moreover, the Trial Court has observed that the application came to be filed for striking out the name - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38592 WP No. 31441 of 2024 of the defendant Nos. 1 & 5 from the cause title of the plaint, which was filed by the defendants No. 2 & 4 and the plaintiff has not sought such a relief. It has further been observed that, this being a suit for partition and all the parties to the suit stand in equal footing, therefore, the application was not maintainable at this stage. It was observed that the rights of the parties and the prayer sought in the counter-claim would be decided by framing necessary issues in this regard. 5. I find no error or illegality in the order impugned. This petition lacks merit and it is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14