- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 103729 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHABALESHWAR VENKATRAMAN HEGDE A/A 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MASGUTTIMANE, POST. KANAGOD, SIRSI, DISTRICT NORTH KANARA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH VENKATRAMAN BHAT A/A 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ALMANE, MASHIGADDE GRAMA, SIRSI TALUK 581401. 2. SMT. SEETABAYI KOM VISHWANATH HEGDE A/A. 65 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, R/O. ALMANE,MASHIGADDE GRAMA, SIRSI TALUK, DISTRICT NORTH KANARA 577419. 3. GURUPAD MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE A/A 58 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/O. KALYAN NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, NEAR RAILWAY STTION, DHARWAD, DISTRICT. DHARWAD. 4. VISHWANATH MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE AGE. 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MASGUTTIMANE, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 PO. KANAGOD, SIRSI, DISTRICT NORTH KANARA 577419 5. VENKATRAMAN MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE A/A 49 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/O. Do. 6. DATTATRAYA MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE A/A 43 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O: DO. 7. SMT. LALITA KOM NAGAPATI HEGDE AGE. 56 YERS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. VAJAGADDE, SIRSI, DISTRICT. NORTH KANARA 577419 8. SMT. MAHESHWARI KOM TIRUMALESHWAR HEGDE A/A 47 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, R/O. KANALLI, PO HEGDEKATTA, SIRSI, DISTRICT. NORTH KANARA 577419 9. SMT. PREMA KOM MANJUNATH HEGDE A/A 40 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD, R/O. BELLEKARI, PO. YADALLI, SIRSI, DISTRICT. NORTH KANARA 577419. 10. ASHOK MAHABALESHWAR BHAT A/A 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KEREKAI VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK, DISTRICT. NORTH KANARA 577419 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. VAGEESH R. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R10 R3 TO R9 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2021 ON I.A.NO.IV IN F.D.P.NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A.NO.IV IN F.D.P NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE SIRSI, BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed challenging the order on I.A.IV dated 06.09.2021 passed in FDP No.4/2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sirsi 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under: Respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No.252/1974 on the file of the learned Additional Munsiff, Sirsi. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 11.12.1979. The defendants in O.S. No.252/1974 preferred an appeal in RA No.3/1980. The appeal was allowed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.08.1989. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.252/1974 filed the Regular second appeal in RSA No.612/1989. The second appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.09.1997. It was declared that, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 branch of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/3rd share in item No.12 to 25 and 1/3rd share was allotted to defendant No.3 in item Nos.12 to 25 of the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.1 and 2 together are entitled for 1/3rd share in item Nos.12 to 25 of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs are declared as exclusive owners of item Nos.1 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. After the disposal of the second appeal, respondent No.3 initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.4/2009. In the said FDP, the petitioner herein filed on application in I.A No.4 seeking for the stay of further proceedings in the same FDP till the disposal of LRM.CR.7033+8144+8153 pending before the Land Tribunal, Sirsi. The said application was opposed by the respondents by filing their objections. The trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 06.09.2021. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is a complete code by itself, regarding certain matters covered under the said Act. Section 132 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He submits that, the said aspect was not considered by the trial Court. He submits that, one of the items of the suit schedule properties is the subject matter before the Land Tribunal. Hence, he submits that, the proceedings in the FDP No.4/2009 may be stayed. He submits that, the judgment and decree passed in RSA No.252/1974 be stayed. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the petitioners had not raised this ground when the suit was pending before the appellate Court. She submits that, the petitioner has raised this ground for the first time after a lapse of more than 50 years from the date of filing of the suit. She submits that, the contention raised by the petitioner is an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 afterthought and only with an intention to protract the proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, she submits that, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that, respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. Petitioner/defendants therein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in RA No.3/1980. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. The respondent No.1/plaintiffs therein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.3/1980 preferred an appeal in RSA No.612/1989 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 15.09.1997 allowed the appeal and set - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.3/1980 and consequently, restored the judgment & decree passed by the trial Court. After disposal of RSA No.612/1989, respondent No.1 initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.4/2009. The petitioner appeared through the counsel in the final decree proceedings, but has not chosen to file an application dated 15.07.2013 at a prior date. After the lapse of 4 years, from the date of filing, the petitioner filed an application to stay the further proceedings of FDP till the disposal of the case in LRM. CR. 7033+8144+8153 by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi. 8. The litigation has been going on since 1974. The petitioner has not raised this issue either before the trial Court or before the Appellate Court. For the first time, in the year 2013, the petitioner filed an application to stay the further proceedings in the FDP. From the perusal of the records, as the petitioner has not raised this ground in the suit, hence, for the first time, he has raised this ground in the FDP proceedings. The petitioner has no - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:443 WP No. 103729 of 2021 right to raise new grounds in the FDP. Respondent No.1 is not getting the fruits of the decree passed in the suit since from 1997. The application filed by the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings. The trial Court, considering the material on record, was justified in passing the impugned order. 9. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB