HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.8290 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. B A REKHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O MR. NANJUNDESHWARA H D/O LATE H.N ASHWATH NARAYANA, NO. 985, 10TH CROSS, SBM COLONY, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. ANASUYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS W/O LATE H.N ASHWATH NARAYANA, NO.3382, VHBCS LAYOUT, VIDYANAGARA, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED. 2. MR. B A RAMESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE H.N ASHWATH NARAYANA, NO.765, II MAIN ROAD, SBM COLONY, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050. 3. MR. B A RAJESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE H.N ASHWATH NARAYANA, NO.3382, VHBCS LAYOUT, Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 2 VIDYANAGARA, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. 4. MR. SHYAMA PRASAD REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE C. SANKARA NARAYANA REDDY, (IN THE PLAINT FATHERS NAME AS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS T.N VISHWANATHA REDDY) R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED ALSO RESIDING AT NO.6-5-695. SREENAGAR COLONY, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN CODE – 515 004. 5. MR. T N PAVAN KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE T.N RAMACHANDRA REDDY (IN THE PLAINT IT WAS ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED AS T RAMANNA REDDY) R/AT NO.675, ‘SAYISKANDA’ GROUND FLOOR, BHEL LAYOUT, 5TH MAIN, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098 ALSO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.102 DREAMS APARTMENT, ROAD NO.63, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA – 500 034. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2024 PASSED BY THE 15TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 3) IN I.A NO.3/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 3 CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO.8960/2014, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A NO.3/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. Given the order that the Court proposes to pass today, this Court does not deem it apposite to issue notice in the matter. 2. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 15.02.2024, passed by the learned 15th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.3) in I.A.No.3/2023 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, two applications were decided. The challenge in the present petition is only to the order passed in I.A.No.3/2023 filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 4 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, filed a suit for partition against her mother and brothers, in respect of suit schedule properties comprising of Item No.1 and Item No.2 of Schedule ‘A’ property and schedule ‘B’ property, totally three properties, as set out below: “SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY ITEM NO:1 All that piece and parcel of property bearing survey No. 232 measuring 5 Acres 35 Guntas situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on the: East by : Government Channel West by : Gowrammas Land North by : Bhadriahs Land South by : Government Land ITEM No: 2 All that piece and parcel of property bearing survey No. 233 measuring 8 Guntas situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on the: East by : Remaining land in Sy No. 233 West by : Gowrammas Land and Government Channel North by: Government Land and Government Channel South by: Munirajappas Land HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 5 SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property viz the premises bearing No.24, Avenue Road Cross, C T Street, Ganigarapet, Bangalore – 560002, measuring approximately East to West 20 feet and North to South 57 feet and in all measuring 1140 sq.ft. consisting of more than 10 shops and bounded on the: East by : Common Passage West by : Private Property North by : Road South by : Private Property” 4. At the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff also made the subsequent purchasers of the Schedule ‘A’ property (both item No.1 and item No.2) as parties to the suit. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the dispute of the plaintiff/petitioner with respect to defendant Nos.4 and 5/ respondents No.4 and 5 was settled and in this behalf, a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 A read with Section 151 of the CPC was jointly filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendants No.4 and 5 and the parties have settled the matter inter se themselves and that the settlement be accepted. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 6 5.1. However, the plaintiff/petitioner contends that the Impugned Order although accepts a settlement and allows I.A.No.2/2023, it does not direct deletion of the parties or amendment of the plaint or deletion of properties under Suit Schedule ‘A’ properties. 6. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that the learned Trial Court has held that the deletion of the suit schedule ‘A’ property would lead to partial partition which cannot be permissible. It has also held that defendants 4A and 5A are also necessary parties for the drawing up of the final decree. Hence their names cannot be deleted. 7. Indisputably, subsequent to the filing of the Compromise Petition, no application has been filed for either deletion or amendment of the plaint or other appropriate proceedings, since during the pendency, there has been a partition inter se the parties. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33393 WP No. 8290 of 2024 7 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, at this stage, submits that the plaintiff/petitioner would file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for redressal of her grievances. 9. Given the aforegoing circumstances, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of this petition, granting liberty to the plaintiff/petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, albeit in accordance with law. 10. The petition is accordingly dismissed, granting the liberty as prayed for. All pending application(s) shall stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19