- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 455 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. RANGANATHAIAH S/O LATE SRI RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KALLAMBELLA VILLAGE SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN KUMAR D.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.N. SHARADHAMMA D/O LATE K N NARASIMHA SETTY W/O RAMAKRISHNA SETTY MAJOR, R/O ARASAPURA, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR - 572 121. SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA KUMAR SINCE DECEASED BY HILS LR'S 2. SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA KUMAR S/O LATE K.N. NARSIMHA SETTY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2(A). SMT. SATHYAVATHI W/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA KUMAR MAJOR KALLAMBELLA VILLAGE AND POST, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. 2(B). SRI. K.L. NARASIMHA SETTY S/O LATE K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA KUMAR PARTER PRIYANA BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, BEHIND SHANKAR NURSING HOME BALAJINAGAR, SIRA TOWN TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 125. 3. SRI. K.N. NARASIMHAMURTY S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA SETTY MAJOR R/O KALLAMBELLA, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR - 572 125. 4. SRI. K.N. NAGARAJA SETTY S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA SETTY MAJOR R/O KADABA BUS STAND GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 219. 5. SMT. K.N. RAJALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA SETTY W/O BALASUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR R/O AGASARA BEEDI CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 6. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHA SETTY, W/O L.G. RAMAKRISHNA SETTY, MAJOR R/O LAKKIHALLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5; SRI. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A AND B); R6 - NAGARATHNAMMA - SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2016 PASSED IN MA.NO.04/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SIRA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2012 PASSED IN F.D.P NO.02/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SIRA, REJECTING THE IA UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 OF CPC., BY APPLICANT/OBJECTOR TO ADD HIM AS RESPONDENT TO FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Revision petitioner is the person who has purchased one of the items of the suit property involved in O.S.No.4/1987 from his vendor who purchased the said property in a Court auction in respect of a money decree. 3. Revision petitioner had filed an application before the Final Decree Proceedings in F.D.P No.2/2002 under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short), which on contest, came to be dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.4/2012, which also came to be dismissed. 5. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that when the suit property is purchased by the petitioner from his vendor who has purchased one of the items of the suit property in a Court auction, subsequent suit in O.S.No.4/1987 including the said property as one of the suit properties in a suit for partition in O.S.No.4/1987 is per se illegal. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC assuming that wrong provision of law has been stated by the applicant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 7. He also contended that one of the items of the suit property which was purchased by the vendor of the petitioner in a Court auction could not have been the subject matter of suit for partition and there is suppression of material facts by the parties with regard to the ownership of the property which was purchased by the revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents however tried to support the impugned order by contending that an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is per se not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, dismissal of the said application and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. 10. Admittedly, a property which was subject matter of Court auction purchased by the vendor of the revision petitioner could not have been the subject matter - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 of in a subsequent suit for partition in O.S.No.4/1987 as the same would not be available for partition. 11. Therefore, there exists a right in the present revision petitioner to oppose the Final Decree Proceedings in respect of the property which he has purchased from the vendor who was an auction purchaser and having purchased the property in the Court auction. 12. However as rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order and supported by learned counsel for the respondents, in such circumstances, application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC would not be maintainable in a Final Decree Proceedings as said provision of law is available only in the execution proceedings. 13. Having said thus, all that the petitioner was required to do is to file an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in the Final Decree Proceedings and come on record and intimate the Court that the property purchased - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 by the petitioner could not have been the subject matter of the partition suit in O.S.No.4/1987 and obtain necessary orders. 14. Such a course has not been adopted by the petitioner but filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. 15. It is no doubt true that in such circumstances mere quoting a wrong provision of law should not affect the right of the revision petitioner as the Trial Court ought to have enquired into the merits of the application. 16. Nevertheless since the application was filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, parties were not given proper opportunity to enquire into the ownership rights that has been propounded by the revision petitioner in the Final Decree Proceedings. 17. Hence, following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51756 CRP No. 455 of 2016 ORDER i. Revision petition stands disposed of by directing the revision petitioner to file an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC before the Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.2/2002 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira which shall be allowed by the learned Trial Judge and thereafter, enquire into the merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner after affording the opportunity for the remaining parties in the Final Decree Proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ii. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 18.12.2025. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6