- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14559 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI T V BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, SON OF LATE VEERANNA, R/AT THUMBUGANAHALLI, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 129 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KEMPANNA S/O. LATE MUDARANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT THUMBUGANAHALLI, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 129 2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA @ LATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. KUMAR, MADHUGIRI TALUK, R/AT BYALYA, PURAVARA HOBLI, TUMAKUR DIST – 572175 3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. SRI.KEMPANNA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 4. SMT.ANJANADEVI, W/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENT 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT THUMBUGANAHALLI, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 129 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.04.2026 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KORATAGERE ON IA NO. 13 IN OS NO. 51/2014 AND AS PER ANNX-E AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.51/2024 dated 10.04.2026 by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Koratagere. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Pending adjudication of the suit, the plaintiff had - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 come up with I.A.No.13 seeking to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. That came to be dismissed by order impugned. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed that in the instant case, the plaintiff filed the application seeking liberty to file a fresh suit, in which the reasons as stated by the plaintiff would not be merely a formal defect, but it would go to the very root of the matter. The suit is of the year 2014. If the application is allowed, it would cause hardship to the defendants. It is also observed that the suit is at the stage of arguments. The plaintiff is seeking to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action which is not permissible under law. It is further observed that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that he is the owner of the suit scheduled property having acquired the same through inheritance. When the grounds urged in the I.A. and affidavit are placed in juxtaposition with the ingredients of sub Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of CPC, the trial Court is of the view that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 the grounds urged in the present I.A. and affidavit do not qualify for grant of permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Hence, the application is devoid of merits and the same was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that certain facts could not be pleaded in the original pleadings and by way of an amendment those pleadings cannot be incorporated. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit. It is submitted that if the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit and a fresh suit is filed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. He had relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Baniram and others Vs. Gaind and others1. The judgment is of two paragraphs and the learned counsel has relied on paragraph No.1 which reads thus: "1. We heard Mr. Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant for some time. After the discussion, at a certain stage, a contention was advanced by Mr. Phadke on a particular point, in the case and he conceded that it was not the case pleaded in the plaint. At this stage Mr. Phadke wishes to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or on a different cause of action. Having considered the fact that non- 1 AIR 1982 SC 789 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 pleading may prove a technical impediment and may result in the dismissal of the appeal which may impede a fresh adjudication if a point is to be made though belated, we consider it just and proper in the interests of justice to permit the appellant-plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as stated hereinabove. We accordingly grant the permission subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs in this Court within two months from today in addition to any costs paid already under the orders of the High Court." 5. Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner's case is at the stage of the suit, whereas at a much later stage, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case had granted liberty to the plaintiff therein. It is submitted that the I.A. that is filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the suit has to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the order passed by the trial Court. Before going further, it is appropriate to look at sub Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of CPC which reads thus: "(3) Where the Court is satisfied,— (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 It may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim." 7. The petitioner has filed the suit in the year 2014 seeking declaration and injunction and he has contested the matter. Now, after a full-fledged trial, when the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner has come up with the application. This Court has also perused the application. The relief as sought in the I.A. cannot be granted after more than 12 years, it is virtually amounting to condoning the delay of 12 years from the date of cause of action. If the petitioner has missed out any of the facts, right from the year 2014, petitioner has not come up with any of the applications before the Court seeking amendment. Now, it is stated that a fresh suit has to be filed as he cannot place all the facts by way of amendment. The trial Court had rightly considered and gave valid reasons why the I.A. cannot be allowed and how the petitioner is not entitled for liberty to file a fresh suit. The order that is relied on by the petitioner is not a binding precedent for the reason that the Apex Court has not laid down any law in the said judgment. When an order is passed basing on the facts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25490 WP No. 14559 of 2026 of the case, that cannot be put forth as a ratio laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the case. The order passed by the trial Court is a well considered one. It requires no interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as the same is devoid of merits. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14