- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2244 OF 2021 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C. G. CHANDRAKALA W/O. SRI SIDDESH D/O. LATE K. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2. KUM. C. G. PADMA D/O. LATE K. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. KUM. C. G. MAMATHA D/O. LATE K. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE - 560 035. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 2. SMT. BABY D/O. SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O. SRI NANDA KUMAR. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 3. BABU S/O. SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 4. KUM. VARALAKSHMI D/O. SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 5. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE K. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE - 560 035. 6. M/S. PRIMUS TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE CAPT. UNNIGOPALAKRISHNANA S/O. SRI GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.103 'THE VICTORIA', 314/6 7TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 007. 7. SRI H.R.MUNI REDDY S/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILALGE, VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 035. 8. SRI C. R. GOPALA REDDY S/O. LATE RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 RESIDING AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALI VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 035. 9. M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. A) SRI K. VITHESH RAJ S/O. R. KIRUBANANTHAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. B) SRI K. OASIS REDDY S/O. R. KIRUBANANTHAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 9(A) AND 9(B) ARE R/AT NO.1556 AND 1557 19TH MAIN ROAD HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BANGALORE - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJ D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R7 AND R9(A AND B); SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 - SERVED; NOTICE TO R8 DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2025) THIS MFA ISFILED UNDER ORDER XXXLX RULE 1(R) OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.II, III AND IV IN O.S.NO.1220/2011 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A. NO. II, III, IV FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellants–plaintiffs challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.II, III and IV in O.S.No.1220/2011 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. The suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties and for a declaration that the registered partition deed dated 28.04.2003 and the registered sale deeds dated 13.02.2004, 03.09.2005, 27.04.2006, 07.11.2007 and 31.01.2011 are not binding on them and for holding an enquiry into mesne profits. 3. The respondents-defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statements. The suit is being contested by all the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 4. In the meanwhile, I.A.Nos.II, III and IV filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. During the pendency of this appeal, by an order dated 31.07.2021, this Court modified its earlier order dated 02.07.2021, which reads as follows: "xxx In view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the interim order dated 02.07.2021 is modified as hereunder: “Respondents / defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 7 and 9(a) & 9(b) are hereby restrained from alienating, encumbering or creating third party interest over the suit schedule properties, till the next date of hearing.” 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants submits that I.A.No.1/2022 has been filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 respondent Nos.1 to 4. While arguing on the said application, Sri Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs submits that if the appeal is disposed off with a direction to the respondents-defendants not to alienate the suit schedule properties and with a further direction to the trial Court to dispose off the suit expeditiously by fixing an outer time limit, the same would satisfy the grievance of the appellants-plaintiffs, as the suit is of the year 2011. 6.1 Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs further submits that the appellants-plaintiffs have already adduced their evidence and subjected themselves to cross-examination and that the matter is presently posted for the evidence of the respondents-defendants. The said factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents-defendants. 7. Sri Nagaraj D.K., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7, 9(a) and 9(b) vehemently submits that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 appellants-plaintiffs are unnecessarily protracting the proceedings by filing one application after another, which are frivolous in nature. He therefore submits that, if this Court were to fix an outer time limit for disposal of the suit, the same may be restricted to three months. He further submits that an appropriate interim order may be passed and also he is agreeable to the continuation of the interim order passed by this Court till disposal of suit; however, the respondents-defendants may be permitted to develop the suit schedule properties. 8. Sri Chethan B., learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that he requires some more time, as he is yet to adduce evidence. He further submits that he intends to cross-examine the appellants-plaintiffs and therefore, requests that sufficient time be granted for completion of the trial. 9. Under the circumstances, with the consent of learned counsels for parties, the matter is remitted back to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 the trial Court for proceeding further with the suit, which is of the year 2011. Having regard to the fact that the suit is for partition and that certain developmental activities are stated to be underway in the layout by the contesting defendants, it would be in the interest of all the parties that the present appeal is disposed off with appropriate directions. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This appeal is disposed off; ii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration; iii. The respondents-defendants are restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties; iv. The respondents-defendants are permitted to develop the suit schedule properties; v. It is made clear that, in the event the appellants– plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the respondents– defendants shall not claim any equity in respect of any development carried-out in the suit schedule properties; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33176 MFA No. 2244 of 2021 vi. The trial Court shall dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within an outer limit of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the parties extend their full co-operation, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose off the suit even earlier; vii. It is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs on either party in the event of any unnecessary adjournment. At the same time, the trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to all the parties to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses; viii. It is needless mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; ix. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16