- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43917 CRP No. 596 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.596 OF 2025 (FDP) BETWEEN: MS. NILOFAR AKBAR D/O LATE MR K M AKBAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.94, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU -560001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. A RAHAMAN GUL MOHAMMED @ GUL MOHAMED AKBAR S/O LATE MR K M AKBAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.94, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU -560001 2. MRS.FARZANA MURTUZA W/O MR JAVED MURTHUZA D/O LATE K M AKBAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO 94, INFANTRY ROAD OPPOSITE GUARDIAN BANK BENGALURU - 560001 3. MISS SHANEEN AKBAR D/O LATE K M AKBAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.G-2, GROUND FLOOR NAVEEN APARTMENTS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43917 CRP No. 596 of 2025 NO.10, PALACE ROAD 13TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU -560 052 4. MR FIRDAUS IQBAL W/O R MOHAMMED IQBAL D/O LT K M AKBAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.94, INFANTRY ROAD F BENGALURU -560001 5. MR KHUDSIA AKBAR W/O SYED HIDAYATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.84, 12TH CROSS KANSHIRAMNAGAR LAKSHMIPURA VIDYARANAYAPUR BENGALURU -560 097 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PONNANNA M B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5; SRI ABHINAV.R FOR SRI VIVEK.B, ADVOCATES FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2025, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 PASSED IN FDP No.25003/2024 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43917 CRP No. 596 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri M.B.Ponnanna, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Shishira Amarnath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5, and Sri Abhinav R, advocate for Sri Vivek.B, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. Revision Petition is filed by the second defendant in FDP No.25003/2024 on the file of the XXVIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-29) on the memo filed by the second defendant in the said Final Decree Proceeding. 3. Operative portion of the impugned Order dated 05.06.2025 passed in FDP No.25003/2024 reads as under: “Preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 with regard to maintainability of petition are hereby rejected. To hear on I.A. filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC on behalf of counsel for respondent No.1, 2 and 4. Call on 18.06.2025.” 4. It is also pertinent to note that final decree proceedings are initiated by the plaintiff in respect of preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.27009/2007 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43917 CRP No. 596 of 2025 City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, (CCH-29), Bengaluru, dated 30.01.2021. 5. Apprehension expressed by the revision petitioner/ second defendant is that the final decree Court may go beyond the preliminary decree wherein, there is a specific direction that schedule ‘B’ property is to be divided as per Ex.D.1. 6. When such is the categorical finding recorded by the Court at first instance in the preliminary decree, the apprehensions expressed by the present revision petitioner is too premature. 7. Further, if there is any deviation in passing the final decree ignoring the directions in the preliminary decree with regard to ‘B’ schedule property, it is always open for the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings. 8. At any rate, on a memo, no judicial Order can be passed. 9. Pertinently, a memo is filed before the Court in any proceedings only with an intention to bring it to the notice of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43917 CRP No. 596 of 2025 the Court some facts and no right can be decided based on the memo. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned Order rejecting the memo. 11. However, second defendant and other similarly placed parties in the final decree proceedings may bring it to the notice of the Court as to the specific direction in respect of division of property as per the preliminary decree which is strictly in accordance with Ex.D-1. 12. With that observation, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63