- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8864 WP No. 20100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 20100 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE HANUMATHRAYAPPA, 2. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMATHRAYAPPA BOTH ARE R/AT MUDDAYANPALYA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK 562127. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. S. SHWETHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHIKKABHARATHI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O LATE GANESH, R/ AT 13/3, KUVEMPU NAGARA, HOSAGUDDADAHALI, 1ST MAIN ROAD, B CROSS, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 021. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8864 WP No. 20100 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 IN O.S.No.417/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. S. Shwetha Kumari, learned counsel for Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in OS.No.417/2021 challenging the order on I.A.No.5, permitting the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- before the trial Court. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance. The parties have agreed for sale of suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and agreement of sale is executed. 3. Receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- advance is acknowledged. The balance agreed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-. During pendency of the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has prayed the trial Court to deposit the balance - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8864 WP No. 20100 of 2025 consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The trial Court has allowed the application and permitted deposit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the deposit is allowed, the defence in the suit is not available. 5. The submission is only mere apprehension. The trial Court has rightly recorded that the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- would not in any way effect the merits of the case or in any way shall be considered as part of the evidence. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28