- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302922024 NC: 2026:KHC:37625 WP No. 15739 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15739 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M.PRAVEEN RAO PAWAR, S/O. MANJOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DOOR NO.118/2, NEAR KRISHNA BHAVANI GUDI, HONDADA ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANANYA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISHWAJITH RAI M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJA G.C., S/O. KORATAGERE CHANDRAPPA, GULLEHALLI, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577213. 2. SUDHA I.R., W/O. G.C.BASAVARAJAPPA, GULLEHALLI, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577213. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC BANK LIMITED, 103/31, 26 MAIN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, NEAR R V COLLEGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302922024 NC: 2026:KHC:37625 WP No. 15739 of 2024 BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SURESHA V., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Ananya Rai., counsel on behalf of Sri.Vishwajith Rai.M., for the petitioner and Sri.K.Murthy., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed to set aside the order dated:23.01.2024 passed by the DRT-1 Karnataka at Benglauru in S.A.No.46/2020. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. It has been vehemently contented by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a party before the DRT, hence, alternative remedy is not an efficacious. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010302922024 NC: 2026:KHC:37625 WP No. 15739 of 2024 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The DRT vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed an order. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the any order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. Furthermore, a person who is not a party to the DRT proceedings may agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum. In the present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has invoked the writ jurisdiction. This Court declines to exercise the discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE