- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15634 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI BHADRE GOWDA, S/O LATE HALAGEGOWDA, R/A NO.20/1, BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU - 571 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI Y V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA ALIAS MANGALA GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O SRI. SADASHIVEGOWDA, 2. SMT. PREMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAMU, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRs., 2(a) SRI. CHANDRE GOWDA, MAJOR, S/O LATE PREMAMMA, 2(b) SRI. MAHESHA.M.R, MAJOR, S/O LATE PREMAMMA, 2(c) SMT. SARASWATHI, MAJOR, W/O SRI SRINIVASA, R-2(a) TO 2(c) ARE R/AT BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-571130. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 3. SMT. GAYITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA, 4. SMT. LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O SRI VASU, 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs., 5(a) SRI. ANIL KUMAR P., MAJOR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs., 5(a)(i) SMT.PALLAVI, W/O LATE ANIL KUMAR P., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5(a)(ii) MASTER CHIRANTH, S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR P., AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PALLAVI. R-5(a)(i) AND 5(a)(ii) ARE R/AT BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-571 130. 5(b) SRI. DEVARAJ P., MAJOR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, 5(c) SRI. SANTHOSH P., MAJOR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, ALL ARE R/AT BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-571 130. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 6. SRI. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, 7. SRI. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, 8. SMT. PADMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI ANANTHU, R-1 TO R-8 ARE R/AT BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-571 130. 9. SMT. NIRMALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA, R/A NO.105, HOSABEED, KUMBARA KOPPAL, MYSORE-570 004. 10. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O LATE BYREGOWDA, R/A BHADREGOWDANA KOPPALU, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-571 130. SINCE DECEASED REP. BY R-4 AS LRs …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3, R4, R6 TO R8 AND R2 (a TO c) AND PROPOSED R-5(b AND c) (ABSENT); R-9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 24.01.2020 NO NEED TO TAKE STEPS IN RESPECT OF DECEASED R-10; PROPOSED R-5(a)(i) SERVED PROPOSED R-5(a)(ii) MINOR REP. BY R-5(a)(i) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE {i} THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU IN MISC NO.11/12 ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 ACT AND {ii} SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.7 DATED 18.3.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-L BOTH ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ or order and set aside the order dated 08.01.2016 at Annexure-G passed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Small Causes, Mysuru, in Misc.No.11/12 allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; and (ii) Set aside the order dated 18.03.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 as per Annexure-L, both orders passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, or pass other suitable orders as deemed fit, by allowing this writ petition with costs in the interest of justice." 2. Sri. Y.V. Prakash, Advocate for Sri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed a suit for partition and separation possession which came to be dismissed for non prosecution. Subsequently the respondent nos.1 to 8 filed an application in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2012 along with an application for condonation of delay. The trial Court, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, condoned the delay of 604 days and proceeded with the miscellaneous petition. It is further submitted that the trial Court on noticing that no notice had been issued to the petitioner, it has issued notice on the miscellaneous petition. Thereafter, the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No.7 to recall the order dated 08.01.2016. However, the trial court under the impugned order, came to the conclusion that on being satisfied with the cause shown, the delay is condoned and rejected the application. It is also submitted that the procedure adopted by the trial Court is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. It is submitted that the respondents No.1 to 8 in collusion, filed a petition and the petitioner being purchaser of the property required to defend the miscellaneous proceedings by opposing the application for condonation of delay. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by directing the trial Court to consider the respondents No.1 to 8 application in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay on merits and he seeks liberty to file objection to the said application and he seeks to allow the petition. 4. There is no representation on the other side. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 6. The pleading and material available on record indicate that the respondents No.1 to 8 filed O.S.No.718/2006 seeking a relief of partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.03.2010. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 to 3 filed Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2012 to restore the suit along with the said petition, they have filed an application in I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay of 604 days. The order sheet and records indicate that the trial Court without issuing notice to the petitioner, who was the respondent No.3 in the miscellaneous proceedings, allowed the application and condoned the delay. And later issued notice to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 the petitioner/respondent No.3 and on appearance, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.7 to recall the order dated 08.01.2016, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. 7. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application - I.A.No.1 in Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2012 without issuing notice to the petitioner/respondent No.3 and without hearing him. Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court is required to consider the application in I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay filed by the respondents No.1 to 8 along with the main matter i.e., while adjudicating and disposing of Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2012. 8. It is open for the petitioner to file objection to the application - I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents No.1 to 8 for condonation of delay. The trial Court shall consider such objection and dispose of the application along with the main matter. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26577 WP No. 15634 of 2019 ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.11/2012 by the Court of the Principal Judge, Small Causes, Mysuru, is set-aside. iii) The trial Court is directed to consider the application - I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by the respondents No.1 to 8 along with the main matter. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25