Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26539 (KAR)

SMT. C V BHAGYA v. SRI. REV. SAMUEL PONNU RAJ

WP/38671/2025 · 2026-07-01

Lalitha Kanneganti

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32677 WP No. 38671 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 38671 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C.V. BHAGYA W/O B.T. INDUSHEKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. B.T.INDUSHEKAR, S/O. LATE. PATEL THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.978, 1ST MAIN, MCR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. REV. SAMUEL PONNU RAJ S/O PETER BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.978, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, MCR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESHA S.B.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32677 WP No. 38671 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.393/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-40) O.S.NO.393/2025 AND SET ASIDE / QUASH THE ORDER DATED26.11.2025 FOR HAVING REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN I.A NO.3 FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT APART FROM DECREEING THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER A joint memo is filed stating that the dispute between the parties has been settled out of the Court and that the respondent, being the tenant, has delivered vacant physical possession of the scheduled premises and handed over the keys to the petitioners/plaintiffs. In the light of the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs intend to withdraw the suit pending before the Trial Court. 2. A memo is also filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the Trial Court may be directed to refund the court fees to the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 that is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32677 WP No. 38671 of 2025 paid in view of the settlement. The learned counsel is at liberty to file an appropriate memo before the Trial Court seeking refund of the court fees and shall consider the same in accordance with law. 3. The joint memo is taken on record. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3