- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.17159 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. PRADEEP. G ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS #151, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD, 1ST STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSORE – 570 016 MOB: 9900303012 EMAIL-ID - gdeepu4975@gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP. G, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. SRI. P.N.SRIDHARA BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., NEW SANTHEPET, MYSORE 2. SMT. JAYAMMA H W/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 3. SRI. GUNDAPPA S/O LATE MUDALAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS BOTH NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.1036, 8TH MAIN, GOKULAM 3RD STAGE, MYSORE – 570 020 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 4. SRI. I.P. SUBBAIAH DEAD BY LRS SMT.B.M.CHITHRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS WIFE OF LATE I.P. SUBBAIAH 5. SRI. I.S.MANJUNATH S/O LATE I.P. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. SMT. I.B.NETRAVATHI D/O LATE I.P.SUBBAIAH WIFE OF ARPITH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT DOOR NO.440, TRIVENI CIRCLE, KALYANAGIRI NAGAR, MYSORE – 570 029 7. SRI. R.MURTHY S/O LATE RAJU CHETTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 8. SRI. NAVEEN.M S/O R.MURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH NO.7 & 8 ARE R/AT NO.27, M.I.G. HUDCO, 2ND STAGE, BANNIMANTAPA EXTENSION, MYSURU 9. SRI. R.BHASKAR S/O LATE RAJU CHETTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. SMT. POORNIMA.B W/O R.BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 11. KUM. MITHILA.B D/O R.BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO.9 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.349, T.N.PURA ROAD, ALANAHALLI EXTENSION, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 026 12. SMT. P.BHAVYA W/O SRI. H.MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.174, 2ND STAGE, 3RD CROSS, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE – 570 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R7-R11; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025, NOTICE TO R1-R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ACJ (SR. DN.) MYSURU IN O.S.52/1994 DATED 03.02.1995 (ANNEXUREF1 & F2) EXE.NO.72/1998 DATED 20.12.2002 (ANNEXURE-G), MISC.NO.75/2002 DATED 27.01.2006 AND HON’BLE I ASCJ AND CJM, MYSORE IN EXE.NO.93/2007 DATED 21.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-K) WHICH IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, FRAUDULENT AND COLLUSIVE INITIATION OF MEASURES AND ACTIONS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: a. Issue a Writ of CERTIORARI by quashing the Impugned Orders passed by the Hon’ble II ACJ (Sr. Dn.) Mysuru in O.S.52/1994 dated 03.02.1995 (Annexure F1 & F2), Exe.No.72/1998 dated 20.12.2002 (Annexure G), Misc. No.75/2002 dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure H) and Hon’ble I ASCJ & CJM, Mysore in Exe.No. 93/2007 dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure K) which is illegal, unlawful, fraudulent and collusive initiation of measures and actions. b. Issue any Writ or Order as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 conveyed the schedule property to one G.Prashanth, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, through a registered Gift deed. On 13.07.2017, the said Prashanth conveyed the schedule property to the petitioner through a registered Gift deed. It is the case, that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property. It is stated that on 19.09.1991, respondent No.1 preferred O.S.No.222/1991 before the Court of Small Causes, Mysore, for the recovery of money Rs. 80,000/-. Later, the suit was transferred to the II ACJ (Sr.Dn.) Mysore, and renumbered - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 as O.S.No.52/1994. On 13.05.1995, the suit was decreed. In the year 1998, the respondent No.1 filed the Execution Petition No.72/1998. It is stated that the suit schedule property was not attached, Bids were not conducted as per the procedure, Bid amount was not deposited within 15 days from the date of Auction Sale, no specific dates were mentioned in the order sheets for final Bids and a no Sale Certificate was granted in favour of Late I.P Subbaiah in Ex.P.No.72/1998. However, on 19.10.2002, the Trial Court passed an order stating that “issue sale certificate to auction purchaser on proper stamp paper.” Further, one I.P Subbaiah did not produce stamp papers in Ex.P.No.72/1998. Finally, on 20.12.2002, the petition came to be closed as fully satisfied without granting the sale certificate in favour of Late I.P Subbaiah. 3. The said Subbaiah has preferred Misc.No.75/2002 for the relief of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. The said Subbaiah preferred the above petition without obtaining a sale certificate in his possession. On 27.01.2006, in Misc.No.75/2002, the trial Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to Subbaiah. It is stated that the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 Subbaiah obtained the order and then sought for the issuance of a Sale Certificate before the trial Court, that too in the Misc.No.75/2002 proceedings. The Trial Court, on 23.03.2006, passed an order directing the “issuance of the sale certificate in favour of petitioner”, and the petition was closed on the same day. It is stated that even after several procedural defects and lapse, no sale certificate was issued in favour of I.P Subbaiah. 4. It is stated that on 23.03.2006, late I.P Subbaiah forged and created the Sale Certificate claiming to be issued in Misc.No.75/2002 proceedings. On 19.02.2007, I.P. Subbaiah preferred another concocted Execution Petition No.93/2007 before the II ACJ (Sr. Dn.) Mysore, for the relief of issuing delivery warrant of the same schedule property against the same respondent Nos.2 & 3. During the pendency of Exe.No.93/2007 i.e., on 12.08.2008, Late I.P Subbaiah sold the property to Respondent No.7. After the demise of I.P Subbaiah, the legal heirs Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came on record on 22.09.2012 by amending the Cause title but they did not continue the proceedings. On 11.09.2014, respondent No.7 was impleaded as Decree holder No.2. Respondent No.7 filed various false and frivolous applications accompanied with false - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 affidavits claiming as Decree Holder No.3 though he did not obtain any decree in his favour. Again, during the pendency of Ex.P.No.93/2007, Respondent No.7 gifted the suit schedule property to Respondent No.8,and subsequently the Respondent No.8 gifted the property back to Respondent No.7. Later, Respondent No.7 gifted the property to Respondent No.9. In the year 2015 the Respondent No.9 filed an application to implead as Decree Holder No.3. 5. It is stated that on 14.08.2014, the trial Court made an order on I.A.15 and 16 in Ex.P.No.93/2007. It is stated that as per the order, it is clear that till 14.08.2014, Late I.P. Subbaiah did not grant and deliver any Sale Certificate in his favour by any court or in any proceedings. It is stated that on 21.12.2018, the Execution Petition No.93/2007 was closed without granting any relief. It is stated that all these clearly indicate that Late I.P. Subbaiah was not granted any Sale Certificate. Further, it is stated that the Graduate Co-operative Bank filed an application U/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Misc.129/2018 before the District Magistrate, Mysuru and obtained an order dated 28.06.2018 without impleading the petitioner and tenants as parties despite knowing that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 Petitioner and tenants were residing in the same suit schedule property. On 17.11.2018, the Bank, without issuing any Notice to the petitioner or his tenants, all of a sudden threw out six families, including the petitioner’s family. A private complaint No.456/2020 was came to be filed against Bank officials and respondent Nos.9 and 10 and the same came to be registered as C.C.No.10/2025 before the IV JMFC, Mysore for offences committed U/s 120B, 420, 423, 448, 468, 474 R/w 34 of IPC. 6. It is stated that on 20.02.2021, the respondent No.12 purchased the disputed property from Respondent No.9 after evicting the petitioner’s family. On 06.09.2021, the petitioner, without any alternative, preferred a O.S.No.863/2021 against the Respondent Nos.4 to 12 before IV ASCJ & JMFC, Mysore, to declare the Sale Deed dated 20.12.2021 as null and void and also to cancel the forged and fabricated Sale Certificate dated 23.03.2006 along with subsequent documents and also a private complaint is filed about the forged and fabricated Sale Certificate dated 23.03.2006. Hence, party-in-person is before this Court questioning the orders passed by the trial Court on 03.02.1995, 20.12.2002, 27.01.2006, and 21.12.2018. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 7. The party-in-person has argued and filed their written arguments. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh1, and also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ram Bahal Singh and Ors. Vs. Chhote Narian Singh and Ors2 and submitted that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if the court comes across any order which is contrary to law, the court has ample jurisdiction to quash the said order suo moto. 8. It is stated that the respondents contend that the trial Court proceedings in O.S.No.52/1994, Ex.P.No.72/1998, Misc.No.75/2002 and Exe.P.No. 93/2007 has attained finality. Regular Appeal i.e., R.A.No.21/1995 was dismissed and Regular Second Appeal No.249/1998 was also dismissed. Wherefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 9. It is submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan referred supra held that court has to decide the allegation of fraud first and then decide the issue of 1 2025 INSC 884 2 AIR 1975 PATNA 241 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 maintainability, and this Court is also bound to comply with the findings of the Apex Court. It is stated that the ends of justice is higher than the ends of mere law. It is stated that R.S.A.No.249/1998 was dismissed due to default. The matter was not heard and finally decided. Dismissal of the suit for default, not being a decision on merits, cannot ordinarily be regarded as a final adjudication. The dismissal for default may not constitute res judicata in the strict sense under Section 11 of CPC. The Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sharada Sanghi Vs. Asha Agarwal 3, and he relies on paragraph No.29 and 30 of this judgment. It is stated that any judgment obtained by playing fraud can be challenged in any court, at any time in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 10. It is stated that the entire proceedings since 1991 to 2018 is a gross abuse of process of Court and involve several unethical actions, such as fraudulent misrepresentations, fraud played upon the Court, fabrication of Court records, filing of false affidavits which amount to perjury, suppression of facts, 3 2026 INSC 292 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 procedural defects and violation of statutory law. All these wrongful acts undermine the integrity of the legal system. It is stated that from 1988 till today, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the same is reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate till date. It is stated that in this case this Court has to examine the following: “i. Whether the trial Court in Exe.No.72/1998, issued a sale certificate to the Auction purchaser? ii. Whether the trial Court in Misc.No.75/2002 conducted the proceedings as prescribed under the statutory law? iii. Whether the trial Court in Misc.No.75/2002 has power to issue sale certificate to the petitioner? iv. The trial Court in Misc.No.75/2002 ought to have ordered to issue sale certificate to petitioner on 23.03.2006. v. Whether the trial Court had power to entertain the Execution Petition No.93/2007 in the name of Late I.P Subbaiah, who was the auction purchaser in Exe.72/1998? vi. Whether the act of the respondent Nos.7 and 9 in Exe.No.93/2007 proceeding, obstructs and interferes with the “Administration of justice”? vii. The trial Court ought to have dismissed Exe.No.93/2007 at its threshold. viii. In the entire proceedings since from 1991 till 2018, whether any court had issued Sale Certificate to Late I.P Subbaiah or his legal heirs? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 Hence, it is submitted that all these orders have to be set aside. The Petitioner/party-in-person relied on Ram Bahal Singh’s, Sharada Sanghi’s, and Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pardhan’s case referred to supra, and Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors.4 Relying on these judgments, the party-in-person submits that this Court has to set aside the above said orders passed by the trial court. 11. The petitioner/party-in-person is an advocate. According to the petitioner, the property was gifted to him on 13.07.2017. He also refers to a Regular Appeal and a suit, i.e.,O.S.No. 863/2021 filed by him. Regarding Original Suit No.863/2021, he has filed it against respondent Nos.4 to 12 to declare the sale deed dated 20.02.2021 as null and void. He refers to the Regular Appeal No.21/1995, which was dismissed, and to RSA.No.249/1998, which was also dismissed. According to him, the RSA was dismissed for default and was neither heard nor decided. The dismissal of the suit for default, not being a decision on the merits, cannot be regarded as a final adjudication. When this Court has repeatedly asked the party- in-person why he has not filed an application to set aside that 4 AIR OnLine 2003 SC 537 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 ex parte judgment and decree, it is submitted that, without questioning all that, as there is an element of fraud, he can proceed with the matter. 12. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is one of judicial superintendence. It is neither an appellate nor a revisional jurisdiction. It is intended to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not to reopen concluded litigation merely because a litigant chooses to characterize every adverse order as illegal or fraudulent. The constitutional jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for reopening the disputes which have travelled through several judicial proceedings over decades. The petitioner seeks to challenge not one order but an entire chain of judicial proceedings. If such an exercise is permitted, there would be no end to the litigation. The doctrine of finality of judicial proceedings is one of the correctness of the administration of justice. Rights crystallized by judicial determinations cannot be permitted to remain in perpetual uncertainty merely because one of the parties is unwilling to accept an adverse order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 13. The present writ petition was instituted in year 2025. The decree sought to be questioned was passed 30 years ago and the execution proceedings concluded more than 2 decades ago. The miscellaneous proceedings concluded nearly 19 years ago. Another judicial order passed in 2018 has also remained unquestioned for several years. The petitioner offers no legally acceptable explanation for this extraordinary delay. A litigator who consciously invokes the jurisdiction of competent courts, participates in the proceedings, and allows adverse orders to attain finality cannot thereafter seek to reopen the entire litigation by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, having chosen not to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed for default, now contends that such dismissal is of no consequences because the foundation of his challenge is fraud. This submission is a complete misconception of settled legal principles. The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither intended nor designed to revive remedies which the litigant has consciously abandoned. When the statute provides an effective remedy, it is expected that the litigant shall diligently pursue the same. If such remedies are dismissed either on merits or for default and the litigant allows - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 the order to attain finality, he cannot circumvent the consequences by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner has proceeded on the premise that once the word ‘fraud’ is employed, every principle governing limitation, finality of litigation, res judicata, acquiscence, and abandonment of remedy stands eclipsed. Such a proposition finds no support either in statutory law or in the settled jurisprudence of constitutional jurisprudence. 14. The supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked merely because a litigant chooses to label every judicial order as fraudulent. If such propositions are accepted, no decree of a comprehensive nature would ever attain finality. Every unsuccessful litigant would definitely want to revive concluded proceedings by merely substituting legal arguments with allegations of fraud. Such an approach would strike at the very foundation of certainty in judicial administration. The petitioner is not an uninformed lay man unfamiliar with legal procedures. He is an advocate enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act and has consciously chosen to appear as a party-in-person. Every litigant is entitled to access - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 constitutional remedies; equally, every litigant is expected to invoke those remedies responsibly. The present petition demonstrates a persistent attempt to circumvent settled legal principles governing limitation, the finality of judicial decisions, and statutory remedies. He seeks to reopen an entire chain of proceedings extending over three decades without disclosing any legally sustainable basis for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. The court cannot overlook the fact that valuable judicial time has been consumed in examining a petition that, on the face of the record, was wholly misconstrued. The present proceedings are not merely devoid of merits; they constitute a clear abuse of the process of the Court. Abuse of process is not confined to the institution of frivolous proceedings; it extends to every attempt whereby the judicial process is employed for a purpose wholly foreign to its object, including repeated attempts to reopen matters that have attained finality, to circumvent statutory remedies, or to invite the court to exercise jurisdiction which it plainly does not possess. 15. The petitioner sought to challenge a decree passed in 1995, execution proceedings concluded in 2002, miscellaneous - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 proceedings concluded in 2006, and another judicial order passed in 2008. He filed the petition in 2012, and during the interregnum, the petitioner actively participated in other proceedings and the suit was dismissed for default. He allowed those proceedings to attain finality, and at no point did he pursue the remedies available in accordance with law. Having consciously abandoned the statutory cause, he now seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure indirectly what he has either failed or neglected to obtain directly. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized that fraud in judicial proceedings can be established by clear and convincing material; equally well settled is the principle that fraud cannot be pleaded in vague or in general terms. The pleadings in the present case are vague. 16. A party-in-person trained in law cannot legitimately contend that dismissal of statutory proceedings, abandonment of appellate remedies, or prolonged inaction extending over decades carries no legal consequence merely because an allegation of fraud was subsequently raised. Such a submission runs contrary to elementary principles governing civil litigation. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 The constitutional courts are already burdened with substantial arrears, and frivolous attempts to reopen litigation that attained finality decades earlier erode the effectiveness of the administration of justice and undermine public confidence in the certainty of the orders. In the considered opinion of this court, this is a fit case for the writ petition to be dismissed with exemplary costs, so that these kinds of petitions are not filed. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The petitioner has abused the process of the court by seeking to reopen a chain of judicial proceedings spanning nearly three decades. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ii. In the event of failure to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority shall be - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33562 WP No. 17159 of 2025 at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. iii. The copy of the order shall be communicated to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. v. Pending I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS