- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141782021 NC: 2026:KHC:36736 WP No. 6924 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6924 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O. LATE A. R. LOKANATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE A. R. LOKANATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SMT. ARUNA W/O. SHIVAMURHTY D/O. LATE A. R. LOKANAHTA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.16, 2ND CROSS AREKEMPANAHALLI END OF WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRATHIMA W/O. RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA D/O. SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141782021 NC: 2026:KHC:36736 WP No. 6924 of 2021 2. MASTER ADITYA W/O. RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PRATHIMA-1ST RESPONDENT BOTH ARE R/AT NO.92, 9TH MAIN KALAPPA BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED THE LEARNED XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN FDP NO.3/2014 DATED 23.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND FURTHER THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COURT COMMISSIONER IN FDP NO.3/2014, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141782021 NC: 2026:KHC:36736 WP No. 6924 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "i) issue writ of certiorari, quash the order passed the Learned XX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in FDP No.3/2014 dated 23.06.2020 vide Annexure-F, and further the Order dated 29.09.2020 vide Annexure-H, ii) Consequently, set aside the Commissioner report submitted by the Court Commissioner in FDP No.3/2014, vide Order dated 25.01.2019 vide Annexure-C, ii) pass any other writ or direction which may be deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri.M.S.Nagaraja learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vishwanath Sabarad learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.2805/2009 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 15.06.2013. The said judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioner in RFA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141782021 NC: 2026:KHC:36736 WP No. 6924 of 2021 No.1971/2019 before this Court and the appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed. 4. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have initiated FDP proceedings. Same was registered as FDP No.3/2014. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application IA No.1/2019 seeking to modify the preliminary decree passed in OS.No.2805/2019 dated 15.06.2013 to the extent of allotting 1/9th share to the plaintiff No.2 alone and sought to set aside 1/9th share allotted to the plaintiff No.1. The said application was opposed and the trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the petitioners' prayer in the application is to modify the preliminary decree in the garb of filing an application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') cannot be entertained, the power available to the trial Court under Section 152 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141782021 NC: 2026:KHC:36736 WP No. 6924 of 2021 and 153 of CPC is to correct the arithmetical error in the judgment. In the present application, petitioners are seeking to modify the preliminary decree which has attained finality in RFA No.1971/2019 before this Court vide Order dated 05.03.2020. Be that as it may, it is also pointed out that the final decree proceedings were concluded and the final decree was drawn and the same is challenged by the petitioner in RFA No.995/2020. 6. In view of the challenge to the final decree in RFA No.995/2020, this petition would not survive for adjudication and impugned order does not call for any interference. The same is rejected. All the contention of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated in the aforesaid RFA No.995/2020. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21