- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9737/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. C/O CHIKKAMADAPPA CHINNANAGENA HALLI MAIN ROAD BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560049. ALSO R/AT. MAARANAGERE VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDINI S, ADV., FOR SRI. PRASANNA D.P. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. GURAMMA @ SUSHELAMMA W/O SRI. MUNIGURAPPA D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. CHINNANAGENA HALLI MAIN ROAD BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560062. 2. SMT. AMMAYAMMA [DELETED AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD:28.06.2021] Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 3. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 4. MR. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS. 5. SMT. VIJAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 6. MASTER KIRAN KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 7. KUM. GOUTHAMI D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REP. BY SMT. VIJAYAMMA MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RES NO.7. R2 TO R7 ARE R/AT. MARANAGERE VILLAGE ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-560067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 8. KUM. MALA W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT. KAPPUKAL VILLAGE NAGONDAPALLI POST DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DIST-635110 TAMILNADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADV., FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 V/O/DTD:28.06.2021, R2 DELETED FROM CAUSE TITLE, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 AS PER CAUSE TITLE, R7 MINOR, REP. BY R5 R4, R5, R6, R8 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN MISC PETITION NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. ISSUE DIRECTION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED IN M.A.NO.83/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU DISTRICT COURT AT BENGALURU & ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.3/2014 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote (for short ‘the trial Court’) and order dated 01.04.2021 passed in MA.No.83/2020 by the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Smt.Chandini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prasanna D.P., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.M.Gopi, learned counsel appearing for - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit in OS.No.31/2012 seeking the relief of declaration that they are the joint owners of the suit schedule property, by declaring that the sale deed dated 22.11.2003 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and Sri.Venkatesh in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void, is bad in law and not binding on the share of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property along with other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered appearance and contested the matter. The petitioner herein, who was defendant No.6, remained absent and was placed exparte. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.03.2013, decreed the suit by declaring that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the suit schedule property and are entitled for 1/6th share therein and further declared that the sale deed dated 22.11.2003 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 executed in favour of defendant No.6 by defendant No.1 and one Sri.Venkatesh is not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner/defendant No.6 filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2013. The said petition was numbered as Miscellaneous Petition No.3/2014. The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 25.01.2018, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the said petition has been filed without an application seeking condonation of delay, despite there being a delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred MA.No.83/2020 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 01.04.2021, dismissed the appeal. Both the orders are assailed in this petition. 5. Admittedly, the petition field by the petitioner/defendant No.6 under Order IX Rule 13 of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199302021 NC: 2026:KHC:43813 W.P. No.9737/2021 CPC was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, rightly rejected the miscellaneous petition and the appeal respectively. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have initiated FDP proceedings, which is stated to be pending. It is open to the petitioner to urge the contentions and work out his equities in FDP.No.15/2013, in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned orders. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23