- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19815 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE BHADRACHAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O BHASKARACHAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, R/AT DEVALINGAYYA PALYA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O SRI. CHANDRAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, R/AT BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE BHADRACHAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 R/AT BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. HUCCHERAPPA S/O LATE BHADRACHAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SUVARNA W/O SRI. RAVI KUMAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/AT BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN FDP NO.5/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND FURTHER DISMISS THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 27.01.2024 passed in FDP.No.5/2020. 2. Heard Sri. Ravindra Prasad B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. Subba Shastry, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5. 3. The petitioner is respondent No.4 in the suit. The suit is instituted seeking partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed on 04.11.2008 against which a Regular Appeal was preferred in RA.No.161/2008, which also came to be rejected and a Regular Second Appeal was preferred before this Court in RSA.No.928/2013. The RSA was disposed by modification of shares, and a SLP filed against the said order was entertained. The issue is not with regard to those proceedings. The Final Decree Proceedings are instituted against the aforesaid proceedings in FDP.No.5/2020. In the said suit, an application is filed by the respondent therein seeking production of records of OS.No.32/2006. The concerned Court by the following order allows production of the said records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 "6. The answer of this court to the above Point is in the Affirmative for the following: REASONS 7. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking drawing up of final decree. The petitioner of this case had filed O.S.No.32/2006 seeking partition and separate possession in the suit properties. This court pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff by judgment dated 04.11.2008. The petitioner of this case, preferred R.A.No. 161/2008 before Hon'ble I Appellate Court. The Hon'ble I Appellate Court pleased to allow R.A. by judgment dated 18.02.2013 and allotted 8/49th share to the petitioner. The respondent had preferred RSA No.928/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka pleased to dispose of the RSA by judgment dated 02.07.2014 and pleased to modify the shares and allotted 1/7th share to the petitioner. The petitioner approached Hon'ble Apex court challenging the judgment of Hon'ble High court, and her petition came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex court by order dated 16.01.2015. The petitioner seeking drawing up of final decree on preliminary decree. 8. At present, in this case, the respondent No.2, 3, 5, 6 seeking call for the original records of of O.S.No.32/2006. The respondent No.4 objecting that, this court has already considered the documents produced by the parties to the suit and again reconsidering the documents does not arise. Further contended that, the matter already attained finality. 9. This is final decree proceedings. It is continuation of the suit. In original suit, the court determines the shares of the parties, in suit for partition and by drawing final decree, the court draws the final decree on preliminary decree passed. 10. The calling of the original suit records, in this suit does not amounts reconsideration of the documents. In this case both the parties seeking modification of their shares. The respondent No.4 has already filed I.A. seeking modification of shares. The petitioner also filed I.A. seeking the same relief. If the original case records called for in this suit, same will assist this court to dispose of the matter properly. Further final decree proceedings is continuation of suit. Hence, for these reasons, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.7 filed at the stage of hearing on I.A. I.A. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 I.A.No.7 filed by the respondent No.2, 3, 5, 6 under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking call for of original records in O.S.No.32/2006 (D.D. 04.11.2008) in this case is hereby allowed. The parties to bear their own cost. The office is directed to place all the records in O.S.No.32/2006 (DD 04.11.2008) with this file. Finally for hearing on I.A.No.1 Call on 02.03.2024." 3. It is this that is questioned by defendant No.5 in the suit before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the records have been looked into by the earlier orders and the matter had reached finality before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The only reason for filing the subject petition is to drag the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents would refute the submission in contending that this Court can fix a timeline and would not drag the proceedings by any manner, as he is also the beneficiary of the shares as ordered by this court in the RSA. 6. In the light of the said submissions, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, as the order of the concerned Court does not brood any perversity and what is called for is records of OS.No.32/2006. The OS.No.32/2006 is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37089 WP No. 19815 of 2024 said to be called for the purpose of disposal of an application that is filed. The concerned Court shall bear in mind while answering the application on looking into the records in OS.No.32/2006 that the proceedings have culminated up to the Supreme Court and not permitted any other inference to be drawn on the records of OS.No.32/2006, that has already been determined by the RSA or dismissal of the SLP, as the case would be. The apprehension of the petitioner that it is to drag the proceedings also is out of place for the reason that the concerned Court shall conclude the Final Decree Proceeding with an outer limit of three(3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed. 8. All other contentions other than the one considered in the subject petition shall stand open to be considered before the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5