Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86993 (KAR)

ABDULLAH v. SMT. RADHAMMA

WP/12527/2024 · 2025-09-15

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37340 WP No. 12527 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12527 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ABDULLAH S/O SRI ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1ST CROSS OLD MASJID, ROAD, BADAVANE, HOODIGRAMA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560048. 2. JAWOOD JAHEER S/O MASTAN SAAB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 1ST CROSS, OLD MASJID, ROAD BADAVANE, HOODIGRAMA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560048. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. OMRAN GULAM AHMED KHAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE PRAKASH REDDY, HOUSE NO. 113, 2ND CROSS, KONDAREDDY COMPOUND, OLD MASJID ROAD, HOODIGRAMA, MAHADEVPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560048. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37340 WP No. 12527 of 2024 2. P RAGHU S/O LATE PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 113, 2ND CROSS, KONDAREDDY COMPOUND, OLD MASJID RAOD, HOODIGRAMA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU- 560048. 3. PRAVEEN S/O LATE PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 113, 2ND CROSS, KONDAREDDY COMPOUND, OLD MASJID ROAD, HOODIGRAMA, MAHADEVPURA POST, BENGALURU- 560048. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN OS NO. 1163/2017, PASSED BY THE 61 ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, DTD 14.03.24, IN IA NO. 9 , AS VIDE ANNEXURE- ACOST OF THE PROCEEDINGSGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS NO. 1163/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS, JUDGE CH-61 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37340 WP No. 12527 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner calls in question an order passed by the concerned court on application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 after hearing both the parties. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC and not a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Reserving such liberty, the petitioner stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 351