- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 9440 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SUMITHRAMMA W/O LATE ANANDA KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SRI. A.RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE ANANDA KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI.A.CHANDAN KUMAR S/O LATE ANANDA KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.8/2, 2ND CROSS, MARIYAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4. SMT.RAJALAKSHMI D/O LATE ANANDA KRISHNAMURTHY W/O T.K.SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.554, OMKAR 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBALA KEMPAPURA BENGALURU - 560 024. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 (BY SRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, HARIHARA ROPPA, NEAR RELIANCE PETROL BUNK, TUMKUR MADHUGIRI MAIN ROAD, MADHUGIRI - 572 132, TUMKUR DISTRICT. SRI. G.S.R NAGARAJA SHETTY, S/O G.N. RAMAPPA SHETTY, OM SRI SHIVA SAI BABA SEVASHRAMA (R), HAROBANDE VILLAGE N.H.7, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT - 562 103. (REPORTED TO BE DEAD AND THE APPLICATION FILED TO BRING ON RECORD THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IN PENDING CONSIDERATION) 2. SMT.K.S.V. SAVITHRAMMA AGED 74 YEARS, W/O G.S.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY R/O OM SRI SHIVA SAIBABA SEVASHRAMA (R) HAROBANDE VILLAGE, NH-7, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 ORDER DATED 17.6.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.15 FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 9 OF CPC BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN O.S.NO.499/2008 VIDE ANENXURE- AQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.6.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.16 FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 4 OF CPC BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN O.S.NO.499/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.06.2020, passed on I.A.Nos.15, 16 and 17 in O.S.No.499/2008 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.499/2008 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 and JMFC, Madhugiri, seeking the relief of the specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 22.08.2008 and for the consequential relief of possession of the suit schedule property and also had sought possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed separate written statement opposing the suit claim. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 had died on 29.12.2013. The plaintiff had filed I.A.Nos.15, 16 and 17 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC and Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC with prayers to condone the delay caused in filing the application, set aside the abatement and to permit the plaintiff to bring the proposed legal representatives, who are the wife and children of deceased defendant No.1 on record as defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d). The said applications were opposed by the proposed defendants by filing objections. The trial Court, vide Order impugned has allowed the said applications and being aggrieved by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 same, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the inordinate delay of more than four years has been condoned by the trial Court though the plaintiff has not explained the said delay satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the trial Court in allowing the applications. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the death of defendant No.1 was not at all reported to the Court. After coming to know of the death of defendant No.1, the plaintiff immediately took necessary steps to collect the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 and has filed the necessary applications. The trial Court, having appreciated the said aspect of the matter, has allowed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 applications with costs. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are the wife and children of the deceased defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed separate written statements opposing the suit claim. The trial Court, in the order impugned, has taken note of the fact that the death of defendant No.1 was not reported to the Court either by his learned advocate or by defendant No.2, who is said to be the brother of defendant No.1. It is under these circumstances the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff had satisfactorily explained the delay caused in filing the necessary applications to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 on record. According to the plaintiff, after he came to know about the death of defendant No.1, immediately he has taken necessary steps to collect the particulars of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54389 WP No. 9440 of 2020 thereafter, necessary applications were filed before the trial Court. An enquiry was held on the applications filed by the plaintiffs to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 on record and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has rightly allowed the applications. Having regard to the delay caused in filing the applications, the trial Court has also imposed appropriate costs on the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which is challenged in this writ petition. I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10