- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100531 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC. VOLUNTARY RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT, HARAPPANAHALLI 583131 VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. JYOTHI D/O VENKATANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION. LAWYER, HARAPPANAHALLI 583131 VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. 3. SMT. MAHESHWARI D/O VENKATANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, HARAPANAHALLI 583131, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT. 4. SRI KALAPUTRA S/O VENKANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, HARAPPANAHALLI 583131, APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE GAVE GPA TO 1ST APPELLANT TO REPRESENT ON BEHALF THEM, ALL ARE RESIDING AT JOYISAKERE NEAR SHANKARMUTT, HARAPPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY SRI VENKANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDAR PARTY-IN-PERSON …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKANAGOUDA R. GOUDAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: SRI KALAKAPPA S/O SHRISHAILAPPA PALLED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. JAKKALI 582111, RON TALUK, DISTRICT. GADAG. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER WHICH IS DEVOID THE MERITS OF THE CASE, DATED 10.09.2024, PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUSTICE IN W.P.NO.103573/2024 (GM-CPC) OF THIS HON’BLE COURT & ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is as against the writ Court’s order dated 10.09.2024 in W.P. No.103573/2024. The writ Court, by this impugned order dated 10.09.2024 has refused to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the order dated 12.02.2024 in O.S. No.170/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.] Court, Ron [for short, ‘the civil Court’]. The civil Court by the order dated 12.02.2024 has allowed the application filed by the respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.170/2022, for clubbing of this suit with another suit filed by the appellants in O.S. No.47/2022. This Court must observe that if the appellants have filed their suit in O.S. No.47/2022 for declaration that the Will and Testament dated 10.05.2011 as null and void, the respondent has filed his suit in O.S. No.170/2022 for declaration that he is entitled for ownership of 1/4th share in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 the suit schedule properties as a legatee under the aforesaid Will and Testament. The civil Court, in allowing the application [I.A. No.6], has opined that the Issues in both the suits are one and the same. The writ Court, while considering the merits of the civil Court’s opinion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has opined that the Issues are ‘interrelated and interconnected’ and therefore it does not find any error by the civil Court in allowing the application. This Court has heard the first appellant, who has appeared in-person for himself and for the other appellants, on the question of maintainability of the appeal in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tamanna and others vs. Miss Renuka and others1. In fact, the first appellant is permitted to file synopsis of his arguments to answer the question: if the petition in W.P. No.103573/2024 is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would this intra-court appeal be maintainable. The first appellant has filed his synopsis, and adverting to the aforesaid decision by 1 ILR 2009 Kar 1207 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 the Full Bench, but he is unable to justify his contention that this intra-Court appeal will be maintainable in the light of the question referred and answered by the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision, which are as under. Question: Whether an appeal from the Judgment, decree or order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which arises against any order made deciding an issue, passed by any Court subordinate to the High Court, in the course of a suit or other proceeding not finally disposed of, and is governed by Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 and attracted by Section 115 and Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court under Section 4 of the said Act in view of Sections 9(xii) and 10(iv-a) of the said Act read with Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of the Karnataka High Court, and Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958? Answer: As a result no appeal would lie under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order of the Single Judge passed in exercise of the power - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB WA No. 100531 of 2024 conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter arising against an order made deciding an issue, passed by the Court subordinate to the High Court, in the course of a suit or other proceedings not finally disposed of, which is attracted by Section 115 CPC and is governed under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act; and in all others matters which are not attracted by Section 115 CPC and not governed under Section 8 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 10(iv- a) against the order passed under Section 9(xii) of the Karnataka High Court Act read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules as well as Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In the light of the afore, this intra-court appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1