- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 3764 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE YELLAPPA AND SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT:57/1, 7TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE, M.S. PALYA BENGALURU – 560 076. 2. SRI. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE YELLAPPA AND SMT. RAJAMMA R/AT: PUSHPA LAYOUT, NYANAPPA SETTY PALYA NO.2 NEAR NARAYANA REDDY HOUSE, BENGALURU – 560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHAGAT VENKATESH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTEPPA 2. SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTEPPA Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 3. SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA 4. SRI. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISANJEEVAPPA SL.NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI HOBLI, BEGUR HOBLI, WARD NO.188, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 5. SRI. SANJEEVAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, W/O. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT TALAGARAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 7. SMT. AKKAMMA, D/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, W/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT HUSKUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, SARJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 8. SMT. BABY, D/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, W/O. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT YESHWANTHAPURA VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. 9. SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10. SRI CHINNAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 11. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 12. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 12 ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI HOBLI, BEGUR HOBLI, WARD NO.188, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076. 13. MR. SHAMANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS: SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA D/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 14. MR. MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 15. SMT. VIJAYA W/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 16. SMT. NETHRA D/O LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 17. VASANTHA D/O LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 18. SRI S. VENKATESH S/O LATE S. SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 19. SRI IYYAPPA S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 20. SRI S MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 21. SRI GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 22. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS.13 TO 22 ARE R/A NO.100, 4TH MAIN 4TH CROSS ROAD, ABBAYAPPA LAYOUT NS PALYA, BMT 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 076. SRI YELLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 23. SRI Y KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA AND SMT. DODDAMUNIYAMMA R/AT NO.98/1, KUTTIYAPPA BADAVANE DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI ROAD B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 24. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O LATE VENKATAPPA D/O LATE YELLAPPA AND SMT. DODDAMUNIYAMMA MADIWALA VILLAGE C/O ONI VENKATAPPA BENGALURU-560 068. 25. SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE YELLAPPA (2ND WIFE) 26. MR. Y. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA 27. MR. Y. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA RESPONDENT NOS.25 TO 27 ARE R/AT NO.57/1, 4TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE BG ROAD, BENGALURU-500 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R1O TO R22) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DATED 08.01.2026 XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY-CCH-8 IN I.A NO.17 AT ANNEXURE-A IN FDP NO.37/2010 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Bharathi M., learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S. B. Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.10 to 22. 2. Even though the matter is actually under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records in FDP No. 37/2010 on the file of XI Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru City -CCH-8 at Annexure-'A'. ii) issue writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quashing the impugned dated 08.01.2026 XI Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru City -CCH-8 in I.A No.17 at Annexure-'A' in FDP No.37/2010. iii) and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 3. It appears that the petitioners who are respondents in the Final Decree Proceedings1 is challenging the order passed on I.A. No.17 filed by the respondents herein seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner. 4. It is evident from the order impugned that a preliminary decree for partition in the suit was passed on 17.08.1989. A Miscellaneous Case No.326/1990 was filed by Yellappa to set aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed on 30.07.1999 which order has become final. Yet the aforesaid order is subjected to challenge by the legal representatives of Yellappa on the specious plea that a suit has been filed by the petitioners bearing O.S.No.6657/2003 seeking declaration of ownership and declaration of the decree passed in O.S No.5212/1987 (in respect of which the FDP proceedings are being taken) as void and non-est, an order of status quo has been passed, and therefore the order impugned is erroneous. 1 FDP - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28531 WP No. 3764 of 2026 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has vociferously opposed the petition on the ground that this petition is an abuse of the process of Court. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has moved a memo for withdrawal. Learned counsel for the respondents states that she has no objection to the petition being withdrawn. The memo is accordingly accepted and this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Let a copy of the instant order be communicated within a fortnight by the Registry to the Court concerned before which FDP proceedings are pending, to be placed on the file. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7