- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11892 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GULABI R. KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS W/O RAGHU KOTIAN MAKHANI CHEMBER ROOMNO. 12, 2ND FLOOR R E EAY ROAD NEAR BRITANIA MUMBAI - 400 033. 2. GOPI AMIN 79 YEARS D/O THIMMA POOJARY E-11, SHREE SARASWATHI COLONY HOUSING SOCIETY N.G. ACHARYA ROAD CHEMBUR, MUMBAI - 400 071. 3. RAMESH KOTIAN 69 YERS S/O KAMALA KOTIAN C-302, MOGRA VIKAS NAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., JIJA MATHA ROAD PUMP HOUSE, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400 093. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VYASA RAO K.S, ADV.) AND: 1. SHANTHA V KOTIAN 63 YEARS. 2. JYOTHI V KOTIAN 44 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 3. PRAKASH V KOTIAN 43 YEARS. 4. SUMANA V KOTIAN 34 YEARS. 1ST RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE & RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE VITTALA T KOTIAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRI MAHALAKSHMI NIVASA MOODABETTU VILLAGE P O KATPADI UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K, ACHARYA, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.8.2020 PASSED BY THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI IN FDP NO.17/2011 (O.S.NO.107/2004) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi in FDP No.17 of 2011 (O.S.No.107 of 2004). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 3. Suit in O.S.No.107 of 2004 was filed before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at CJM, Udupi, by the respondents herein claiming 1/7th share in the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 29.07.2011 and the petitioners herein who were defendants in O.S.No.107 of 2012 had initiated final decree proceedings before the trial Court in FDP.No.17 of 2011 and a final decree was drawn on 21.11.2015. Subsequently, the petitioners had filed an application dated 22.06.2017 to correct the operative portion of the order passed in FDP.No.17 of 2011 to the extent it relates to entitlement for awarding the compensation amount in the land acquisition proceedings wherein the land bearing survey no.63/13 was acquired by the State and award was passed in LAC.No.75 of 2014 and LAC.No.76 of 2004. The trial Court had allowed the application of the petitioners on 22.06.2017 and had carried out necessary amendment in the operative portion of the order passed in FDP.No.17 of 2011 and had held that petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.107 of 2004 are entitled for the compensation amount in the land acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, the respondents herein who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.107 of 2004 also had filed another - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 application to carry out necessary amendment in the operative portion of the order passed in FDP.No.17 of 2011 dated 21.11.2015. The said application was opposed by the petitioners and the trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the application and consequently has held that the respondents who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.107 of 2004 are entitled for the compensation amount awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. Assailing the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the trial Court has erred in passing two conflicting orders. He submits that even otherwise the order dated 21.11.2015 passed in FDP.No.17 of 2011 is full of ambiguity and there is no clarity in the said order with regard to entitlement of the parties for the compensation amount awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. Undisputedly, the Commissioner appointed in final decree proceedings has not stated anything in his report about allotment of the compensation amount awarded in the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 dated 22.06.2017 passed at the instance of the petitioners and also the order impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the trial Court to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders on both the applications. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent who has opposed the prayer made in the petition submits that in the event this Court is inclined to remand the matter with a direction to the trial Court to consider the applications filed by both the parties, to clarify about the entitlement of the parties for the compensation amount awarded under the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land bearing survey no.63/13, both the parties may be given opportunity to place material before the trial Court in support of their claim and the trial Court may also be directed to take into account the report filed by the Court Commissioner. 6. Submissions made on both sides placed on the record. 7. Perusal of the order dated 21.11.2015 passed in FDP No.17 of 2011 by the Trial Court would go to show that, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 there is no clarity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to entitlement of the parties for the compensation amount awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. The trial Court has striked out the words plaintiff and defendant multiple times in paragraph no.7 of the order which has led to ambiguity and this has resulted in both the parties' filing applications under Section 152 of CPC and the trial Court, considering the applications filed by both the parties, has passed two separate orders dated 22.06.2017 and 27.08.2020, which are contrary to each other. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the aforesaid two orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to consider the said applications filed by the petitioners and respondents under Section 152 of CPC, afresh and pass fresh orders after hearing both the parties, the same would serve the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order impugned dated 27.08.2020 passed on the application filed on behalf of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45435 WP No. 11892 of 2020 the respondents herein under Section 152 of CPC and the order dated 22.06.2017 passed on the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 152 of CPC in FDP.No.17 of 2011 by Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi are set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the said applications afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits, after affording opportunity to both the parties to place additional material, if any, before the trial Court and it is needless to state that the trial Court may also take into consideration the commissioner's report filed in the proceedings. Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27