- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102589 OF 2025 (CPC-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KASHIBAI W/O. KRISHNAPPA YARAGUDRI AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. VAJRAMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT – 587313. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. TIMMAVVA W/O. VITTAL NADAGOUDA AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI DIST. BELAGAVI- 591 129. 2. SMT. BALAMMA W/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. YADAVAD (KOPPADATTI), TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 136. 3. SRI. KIRAN S/O KRISHNAPPA YARAGUDRI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VAJRAMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT – 587313. 4. SRI. ARUN S/O KRISHNAPPA YARAGUDRI AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VAJRAMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT – 587313. 5. SMT. KARUNA @ SUMA W/O RANGANAGOUDA MELLIGERI @ PATIL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAGALAGOMBA, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 6. SRI. SUBHASH S/O BALAPPA YARAGUDRI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 7. SMT. SUNANDA W/O KRISHNAPPA YARAGUDRI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:25:01 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VAJRAMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT – 587313. 8. SRI. SURESH S/O SUBHASH YARAGUDRI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VAJRAMATTI, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT – 587313. 9. SRI. NINGANAGOUDA @ NINGAPPAGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YADAVAD (KOPPADATTI), TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI –591136. 10. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER U.K.P JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI DIST BAGALKOT -587 301. 11. THE GENERAL MANAGER LAND ACQUISITION OR L.A.Q.R & U.K.P NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, TQ AND DIST BAGALKOT. 12. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT, TQ AND DIST BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADV FOR R2, SRIYUTHS. H.N. GULARADDI AND YALAGI KAVYA SHIVAPPA, ADVS FOR R3 TO R5, R7 TO R9, SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R10 TO R12) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S NO.265/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MUDHOL DATED 11.04.2025 IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The Appellant/Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2025 on IA No.II in OS No.265/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudhol, filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: Respondent No.1 filed a suit against the appellant for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.265/2023. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.II. The trial Court, passed an order on the said application, restraining defendants No.10 and 11/respondents No.10 and 11 herein from disbursing the compensation amount in favour of defendant No.2 i.e., the appellant herein. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the arguments learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the trial Court, without assigning any reasons, has restrained the respondents No.10 and 11 herein, from disbursing the compensation amount in favour of the appellant. He submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order and the trial Court has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order. Hence, he submits that the order may be set aside, and the trial Court may be directed to reconsider the applications, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the trial Court has not assigned any reasons while passing the impugned order. He submits that, in case, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the applications within the time limit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. There is no dispute that respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the appellant herein, and others. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.II seeking direction to the defendants No.10 and 11/ respondent No. 10 and 11 herein, not to disburse the compensation amount in favour of defendant No. 2/appellant herein. The trial Court, without assigning any reasons, and without hearing defendant No. 2/appellant herein, and only hearing the learned counsel for respondent No.1, has passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court violates of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10564 MFA No. 102589 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 11.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.265/2023 by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, is set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to re-consider the application in I.A.No.II filed by the respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Meanwhile, respondents No.10 and 11 are restrained from disbursing the compensation amount in favour of the appellant, till the disposal of the application filed by respondent No.1 before the trial Court. (v) The Other respondents are at liberty to file an affidavit before the trial Court. In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA, NAA CT: BSB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46