- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7391 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE COMMITTEE, HULIYAR TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ. TUMAKURU DIST – 572 218. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. D. BEERAAIAH. 2. D BEERAAIAH S/O. LATE. DURGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, THE SECRETARY, BEERALINGESHWRA COMMITTEE, R/AT K.C. PALYA, HEMLET OF HULIYAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 218. 3. K.B. DURGAIAH S/O. LATE. BEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BEERALINGESHWARA COMMITTEE, R/AT K.C. PALYA, HEMLET OF HULIYAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DIST – 572 218. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.R. RAJASHEKARA S/O. G. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 LINGAYATH STREET, HULIYAR TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 218. 2. PUTTI BAI W/O GANGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT INDIRA NAGARA, HULIYAR TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANHALLI TQ. TUMAKURU DIST - 572218. 3. G. KUMAR S/O. GANGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT B. TANDYA, BARAGURU POST, HANDANKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ. TUMAKURU DIST - 572218. 4. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. N.C. MARULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NANDIHALLI, NIRUVAGAL POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DIST - 572218. 5. BHUVANESHWARI W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DABBAGUNTE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DIST – 572 218. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATES FOR R1 R2, R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.25.1.2021 PASSED ON IA FILED U/OR 23 RULE 1(3)(A)(B) OF CPC 1908 IN RA 25/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2021 passed in RA.No.25/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.Sunil Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The said suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal. In the said appeal, they have filed an application seeking to withdraw the suit, pointing out that there is a formal defect in the suit with regard to the pleading in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 plaint. It is submitted that schedule ‘A’ property was granted to the temple managed by petitioner No.1 and other petitioners to the extent of 8 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.28 and 2 acres which is adjacent to the said land, later re-numbered as Sy.No.187 was granted to Sri.Ranganatha Swamy. After his death, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property, hence, suit was filed for a relief of declaration that schedule ‘B’ property is owned by the plaintiffs and relief of injunction for the entire extent which is 10 acre 22 guntas and this aspect is not properly pleaded in the plaint and the prayer which is a formal defect. However, the Appellate Court has failed to consider the said aspect. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 filed suit in OS.No.243/2011 against Sri.H.B.Durgaraju and others with regard to the entire extent of land and the said suit came to be decreed and this aspect is also required to be brought on record. Hence, sought leave of the Court to withdraw the suit, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 which was erroneously rejected by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the petitioners failed to point out what is a formal defect in their application. It is submitted that the application was filed belatedly when the Appellate Court was about to pass orders on the appeal. Considering all these aspects the Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners filed OS.No.158/2008 against the respondents seeking relief of declaration and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.03.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a regular appeal in RA.No.25/2018. In the said appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a)(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the suit schedule property on the same cause of action by pointing out that there is a formal defect in the present suit. The respondents opposed the said application by filing objections. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application. 6. It is to be noticed that the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the land in Sy.No.28 is totally measuring 10 acre 22 guntas and out of the said extent, 8 acre 22 guntas was granted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and remaining 2 acre was re-numbered as Sy.No.187 and was granted at the instance of the petitioner to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 Sri.Ranganatha Swamy and after his death, the respondent No.1 claiming to be the son of deceased Sri.Ranganatha Swamy along with other respondents have obstructed the temple from using the property; hence, the suit came to be filed for relief of declaration and injunction. It is further contented that during the pendency of the said proceedings, petitioner No.1 instituted a suit in OS.No.243/2011 against deceased Sri.H.B.Durgaraju and others and the said suit came to be decreed on 29.09.2016 and the said aspect is required to be brought on record in the suit filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.158/2008 which is a formal defect. In my considered view, the said aspect cannot be a formal defect as the suit in OS.No.243/2011 was decreed on 29.09.2016, when the plaintiffs’ suit in OS.No.158/2008 was still pending. Hence, nothing prevented the plaintiffs in OS.No.158/2008 to seek for amendment of the plaint and to bring the said aspect on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 7. Be that as it may, a perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application does not indicate any formal defect which the plaintiffs intend to point out. The affidavit is bereft of details and fails to specify as to what is the formal defect by which the suit would fail. In the absence of pointing out the said formal defect in the affidavit, the Appellate Court has rightly come to conclusion that the application has no merit. The Appellate Court further recorded that the petitioners/appellants had sought number of adjournments and failed to argue the matter, despite the respondents having argued the matter. It was only at that stage, after a period of 12 years from the date of filing of the suit, the present application was filed seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit on the ground that the suit was bound to fail on formal defect, has no merit. I fully concur with the said finding of the Appellate Court and the said finding is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and law and does not call for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33003 WP No. 7391 of 2021 interference in the present petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21