- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7858 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS DEAD BY HER LRS 2. SRI PRABHAKARA M S/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SMT VISHALAKSHI W/O SRI BHUMA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE CARMELARAM POST SARJAPURA ROAD BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 035. 4. SMT ARUNA W/O NAGARAJA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE BELLANDUR POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 103. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 5. SMT AMBUJA W/O PAPANNA D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 107. 6. SMT SUGUNA W/O LATE BABU @ NAGARAJA REDDY D/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK BEGNGALURU - 562 125. 7. SMT SAVITHA M W/O SRINIVAS D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KYLASANAHALLI VILLAGE BYRATHI POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 077. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 7) AND: 1. SRI. NYATHA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YAERS 2. SRI VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YAERS 3. MISS SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 58 YAERS 4. MISS SUNITHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YAERS 5. MISS SUJATHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YAERS ALL ARE R/AT HONGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU -560 068. 6. SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY D/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035. 7. 7(a). 7(b) SMT JAYAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY D/O THIMMA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S SMT. RAJAMMA W/O KRISHNAREDDY D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH AND JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.111, 4TH CROSS BEHIND BAKE PALACE BAKERY ANNASANDRA PALYA BENGALURU - 560 017. SMT. RANI D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 AND JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.33, HOSTEL ROAD VIBHUTHIPURA, VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 017. 8. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.650/10, 1ST CROSS 2ND MAIN, L B SHASTRI NAGAR VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 017. 9. SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD ADDRESS R/AT NO.3/2, LINGAIAHNAPALYA MAIN ROAD ULSOOR BENGALURU - 560 008. PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT LAKKUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160. 10. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 11. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 12. SRI SURESH V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 13. SRI BABU V., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D 10 TO D 13 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHU HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 14. SMT. KANTHAMMA D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS) 14(a). SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY AND SMT KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YAERS R/AT GOVIND SHETTY PALYA OPP TATAPPA'S SHOP (ANGADI) ROAD ELECTRONIC POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 100. 15. SRI PAPAIAH REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) 15(a). NEELAMMA W/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 15(b). BABU P S/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 15(c) SHAMALA P D/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 DEFENDANTS NO.15(a) TO 15(c) ARE R/AT NO.29/2, MUNESHWARA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, DODDA KANNAHALLI CARMELRAM POST, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 035. 15(d). KOMALA P D/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 105. 16. SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS (SINCE DECESED BY LRS) 16(a) RADHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 16(b). THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE K T NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 16(c). 16(d). MANJULA D/O LATE K T NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AHALYA @ SAROJA DEAD BY HER LRS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 16(d)(1) SMT. POOJITHA W/O VEERESH D/O LATE SMT. AHALYA @ SAROJA AND LATE RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.306, ASR OCTAVE APARTMENTS, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CARMELARAM POST VARTHU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 035. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R8 AND R9; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 NOTICE TO R6 AND R7(b) IS DISPENSED WITH. R7(a) AND R14(a) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SIR P.G. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R13 SRI. B.V. SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR R15 (a) TO (d) AND R16 (a to c) R16(d)(1)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.18 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1175/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-19) AT ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY ALLOW THE IA NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER NOs.1 TO 7/DEFENDANT NOs.6 TO 12. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are defendant Nos.6 to 12 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which their application in I.A.No.18 filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC came to be rejected. 2. The only ground on which the said application came to rejected is that petitioners herein had approached the trial Court seeking to recall the order placing them exparte after lapse of 9 years while the provisions provide only for 90 days. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they being necessary parties, trial Court ought not to have been too technical in rejecting the application without looking at the substantive reliefs being sought before the trial Court. He furnishes a copy of the genealogical tree of the family and submits that the petitioners are the descendants of Propositus-Thimma Reddy having their specific share in the suit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 properties, without they being on record and without permitting them to contest the matter, effective decree cannot be passed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that after passing of the impugned order, respondent/plaintiffs have indeed executed a confirmation deed confirming the earlier partition that had taken place amongst the family members in respect of the suit properties. Said registered confirmation deed is dated 04.09.2023 and order impugned herein is required to be recalled to report subsequent development of execution of confirmation deed before the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs fairly submits that the petitioners are indeed necessary parties to the suit. However, he submits that they despite being aware of the proceedings pending consideration, remained reluctant only with an intention to protract the same. However, as regards execution of confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 he submits that he has no instructions in the matter. 5. Heard and perused records. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 6. Suit is one for partition and separate possession. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application is that suit summons have not been served on them personally. Impugned order does not indicate that the trial Court has indeed adverted to the grounds urged by the petitioners seeking to recall the order. Without adverting to the same, trial court has held that despite service of summons, the applicants did not appear and hence placed exparte. The trial Court ought have specifically given its finding regarding service of summons which is absent. 7. Notwithstanding the above and in view of subsequent development in the nature of execution of confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 regarding earlier partition requiring the same to be brought on record before the trial Court, taking submissions of the counsel for the parties, petition is allowed and order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on I.A.No.18 is set aside. Application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.18 filed under Order IX Rule 17 CPC is allowed subject - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021 to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to plaintiffs/respondents. All the contentions of the parties kept open to be urged before the trial Court. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications if any stand disposed of with liberty to file the same before trial Court if required. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9