- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22847/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MANJULA W/O LATE VISHWANATH SHET AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2. VIMALESH S/O LATE VISHWANATH SHET AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 3. MITHILESH S/O LATE VISHWANATH SHET AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT 245/B, GROUND FLOOR 57TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU -10. 4. PRUTHVI W/O SACHINDRA SHET AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 6/7, 76A NIVEDITHA MARG OPPOSITE GOVT HIGH SCHOOL VOLAKADU, UDUPI-01. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KSHAMA NARAGUND, ADV., FOR SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SUDHABAI W/O LATE GURURAJ RAO Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS NEAR MARUTHI MANDIR KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE. SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 AMENDED VIDE ORDER DTD:12.12.2025 2. SRI. ANIL KUMAR 3947, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. SRI. ARUN KUMAR NO.243/B, 56TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. 4. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR NO.741, 58TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. 5. SMT. LATHA D/O LATE GURURAJ RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.308, SRI RAMA MANDIRA KRUPA MOOW AND C S LAYOUT KUVEMPU NAGAR, T K LAYOUT MYSORE 23. 6. SMT. VIDYA LATHA G K D/O LATE GURURAJ RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.85, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD T K LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE -23. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SUKUMAR JAIN, ADV., FOR R1, R4, R5 & R6 SMT. NEHA PATIL, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 DIRECTION AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED ON 29.08.2022 IN O.S.NO.5043/2012 BY THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-13) BENGALURU & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.5043/2012 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 13) (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Smt.Kshama Naragund, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. One Sri.Vishwanath Shet, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4, has filed a suit in O.S.No.5043/2012 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. During the pendency of the said suit, the said Vishwanath Shet died - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 and the petitioners herein being the legal heirs, were not aware about the filing of the suit. Hence, they could not immediately file an application to come on record. The suit came to be dismissed as abated on 19.11.2014. It is to be noticed that the petitioners herein have filed another suit in O.S.No.377/2017 for the relief of specific performance against the very same respondent. In the said suit, the petitioners came to know about the filing of the suit by said Vishwanath Shet, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the other petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') seeking permission to come on record as the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC seeking to set aside abatement and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') seeking to condone the delay. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said applications by recording the reason that once the suit is dismissed, the Court becomes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 functus officio and the remedy to the legal representatives is to file a miscellaneous petition. 4. A perusal of Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC makes it very clear that if the suit is dismissed as abated, the legal heirs of the plaintiff have a right to make an application seeking to set aside the abatement or dismissal of the suit and sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order XXII of the CPC clearly states that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to the application filed under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order XXII of the CPC. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order by stating that the Court would become functus officio and the petitioners have to file a miscellaneous petition. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the petitioner is with regard to the delay seeking condonation on certain grounds. Hence, the Trial Court is duty bound to consider the applications filed by the legal heirs of the original petitioner under Order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24488 W.P. No.22847/2022 XXII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC and under Section 5 of the Act, in accordance with law and pass orders after hearing the parties to the proceedings if required by conducting an enquiry in the Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.5043/2012 by V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-13), is set aside. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the petitioner's applications filed under Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Act, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8