- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3168 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. K. CHIKKEGOWDA S/O KAMBEGOWDA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT OPP. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE KUNAGHATTA, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. NAGARAJ S/O LATE KAMBAIAH AGED 67 YEARS, C/O VENKATESH VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, KALINGESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, HOSA SIDDAPURA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 2. SMT. PUTTARANGAMMA W/O LATE KAMBAIAH AGED 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.905/1, ADJACENT TO SINDHURANI BUILDING, HANUMANTHAPPA COLONY, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 3. SRI. K. NARASEGOWDA S/O LATE KAMBAIAH AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.905/2, ADJACENT TO SINDHURANI BUILDING, AHANUMANTHAPPA COLONY, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 4. SRI. K. MALATHESH S/O LATE KAMBAIAH AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.905/3, ADJACENT TO SINDHURANI BUILDING, HANUMANTHAPPA COLONY, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 5. SMT.K.SUMITHRA W/O LATE D.K.KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-5/2, KPC COLONY, KARGAL, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 421. 6. SRI. K. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE KAMBAIAH AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.905/1, ADJACENT TO SINDHURANI BUILDING, HANUMANTHAPPA COLONY, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 7. SMT. YASHODA W/O GANGADHARA AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/83 3R CROSS, PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 245. 8. SMT. SAROJA W/O R. DINESH AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, 4TH MAIN, PIPELINE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020, NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.4 FILED U/S 10 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.31/15 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, VIDE ANNX-K AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 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 04.11.2019 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.31/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Sri. M. B. Chandra Chooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was defendant No.5 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner herein initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.14/2013. During the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent Nos.7 and 8, claiming to be daughters of Sri. Kambaiah, filed an application for impleadment. The said application was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 allowed as the petitioner did not oppose the same, and the final decree proceedings continued. 3. During the interregnum, respondent Nos.7 and 8 filed a suit in O.S.No.31/2015 seeking partition and separate possession of the properties. In the said suit, they sought stay of the further proceedings in FDP.No.14/2013, which was allowed under the impugned order. It is submitted that when the parties to the proceedings do not dispute the relationship of respondent Nos.7 and 8 and they have already been impleaded in the final decree proceedings, there was no point in allowing the suit to continue and for drawing another preliminary decree. It is contended that, instead of staying the suit proceedings, the Trial Court has erred in staying the final decree proceedings. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Notice has been served on the respondents. However, there is no representation on their behalf. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. Respondent No.1 - Sri K. Nagaraja has filed O.S.No.213/2001 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006. It is to be noticed that the petitioner herein was defendant No.5 in the said suit. 7. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.213/2001 has attained finality and there is no challenge to the same. The petitioner herein thereafter initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.14/2013. In the said proceedings, respondent Nos.7 and 8 claiming to be the daughters of Kambaiah, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for impleadment. The said application was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2016 and the said respondents have been impleaded in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 aforesaid FDP. It is required to be noticed that the petitioner herein who has initiated FDP had stated that he had no objection to allow the said application. 8. It is further noticed that respondent Nos.7 and 8 filed a suit in O.S.No.31/2015 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the very same suit schedule properties as in O.S.No.213/2001. In the said suit, they filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of the proceedings in FDP.No.14/2013 on the ground that without making the plaintiffs in O.S.No.31/2015 as parties, decree has been obtained in O.S.No.213/2001. 9. It is required to be noticed that the Trial Court, under the impugned order, stayed the further proceedings in FDP.No.14/2013. The records indicate that the parties to the final decree proceedings had no objection to respondent Nos.7 and 8 to come on record in the final decree proceedings. When the said respondents are already in the FDP proceedings, it is for the FDP Court to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 proceed further and draw the final decree by allotting appropriate shares to the parties including the respondent Nos.7 and 8. 10. When such an enquiry is pending pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 18.02.2006, in my considered view, respondent Nos.7 and 8 ought not to have filed the suit in O.S.No.31/2015. Be that as it may, the Trial Court, without considering the aforesaid aspects and without appreciating the fact that the Court cannot be compelled to draw another preliminary decree in respect of the same subject matter between the same parties, when the parties to the proceedings are not disputing their relationship with respondent Nos.7 and 8 has proceeded to pass the impugned order and the same is required to be interfered with. In my considered view, the impugned order does not sustain. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31038 WP No. 3168 of 2020 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2019 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.31/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.4 filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit, namely respondent Nos.7 and 8, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21