SMT. MANJULA v. SRI K HARIKRISHNA SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS SRI H KUBERA
WP/21502/2025 · 2025-09-15
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87546 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87546 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
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. 21502 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. 2. SMT. RENUKHA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. 3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
4. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. 5. SRI. VENKATESHWAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. 6. SRI. SRIHARI S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIGALACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALULK. BENGALURU - 562125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B RAMESH.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI K HARIKRISHNA SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS
SRI. H. KUBERA, S/O LATE. K.HARIKRISHNA, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT R/A.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
NO. 2, ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU 560030. 2. SMT. H. AMUDHA, D/O LATE. K. HARIKRISHNA, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2, ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU 560030. 3. SRI. H. SATHISH, S/O. LATE. K. HARIKRISHNA, AGED 56 YEARS RESIDING AT R/A. NO. 2, ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU 560030. 4. SRI. H.PRAKASH, S/O. LATE. K. HARIKRISHNA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2, ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU 560030. 5. SRI. H. VINOD KUMAR S/O. LATE. K. HARIKRISHNA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT R/A. NO. 2, ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU 560030. - 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
6. SRI. D.S.VEERANJINAYA, S/O. SHANKARAPPA ALIAS PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A. DOMASANDRA, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562125. 7. D.V. MANJUNATH, S/O. LATE OF VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A. DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.
S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. VISHWANATH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL IN OS NO. 440/2010 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-V TO RESTORE OS NO. 440/2010 AND CONSIDER THE COUNTER CLAIM MADE BY THE PETITIONERS WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-Q IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2025 PASSED IN WP NO. 27634/2025 CONNECTED WITH WP NO. 32410/2015 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX- V AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioners above named respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal in OS.No.440/2010 to restore OS.No.440/2010 which is produced and marked as Annexure-V and consider the counter claim made by the petitioner which is produced and marked as Annexure-Q in terms of the
order dated 27.03.2025 passed in WP.No.27634/2025 connected with WP.No.32410/2015 which is produced and marked as Annexure-U. b. To pass any other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity".
2. Heard Sri. B.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri. Vishwanath H.M,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri. R.C.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7
3. The petitioners are defendants. A suit is instituted by plaintiffs seeking declaration. In the said suit, the present petitioners filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
petitioners-defendants, while filing their Written Statement had also registered their counter claim. The concerned Court allows the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, rejects the plaint. But while so rejecting, rejects the suit but does not consider the counter claim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the rejection of the suit by answering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the counter claim is not being considered by the concerned Court. It is trite that, a counter claim made by a defendant through the Written Statement is a separate suit by itself. If the suit had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in an application filed by the petitioners-defendant, it cannot be said that the counter claim filed by the defendants also would get rejected. It is therefore, the concerned Court must answer the counter claim.
5. In that light, the petition stands disposed with a direction to the concerned Court to consider the counter claim registered by the present defendants, in accordance with law, by regulating its procedure.
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36758 WP No. 21502 of 2025
6. The suit is of the year 2010 and is said to be languishing before the concerned Court for the last 15 years. Therefore, to infuse finality into the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose the said suit within an outer limit of six(6) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27