- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD WRIT PETITION NO.3695 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B. UTTAM KUMAR S/O. LATE G. H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.404, 1ST MAIN 9TH CROSS, PANCHASHEELAN NAGAR MOODALAPALYA, GOVINDARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P. G. PRAKASH S/O. LATE G. H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.7, 3RD BLOCK 4TH MAIN ROAD, T.R. SHAMANNA ROAD NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, TYAGARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 028 2. SRI LAKSHMIPATHY T. S/O. LATE THAMMANNACHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62 SOUTH END CIRCLE NAGASANDRA CIRCLE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 BASAVANAGUDI POST BENGALURU-560 004 3. SMT. SUJATHA B. D/O. LATE G. H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT C/O. TANUJA SRINIVAS DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BAGALURU ROAD, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU EAST-560 049 4. SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O. SRI HARI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.17 KUVEMPU CROSS ROAD JARAGANAHALLI JP NAGAR VI PHASE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 078 5. SRI B. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE G. H. BANGERA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/1, 2ND MAIN IX CROSS, CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 6. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI D/O. LATE G. H. BANGERA W/O. SRI RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 4TH MAIN IX CROSS, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PENDING DISPOSAL ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-26) IN O.S.NO.1308/2023 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/09/2024 AND 18/12/2025 IN O.S.NO. 1308/2023 ALL THE APPLICATION (I.A. NO.4 AND 6) MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-26) WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioner No. 1 challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 passed on IA No. 4 and the order dated 18.12.2025 passed on IA No. 6 in O.S. No. 1308/2023 by the Xth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration and injunction. Heard Lr Counsel for Petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 2. The trial court, by its order dated 17.09.2024, allowed IA No. 4 filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4 on record. IA No. 6 was filed by the plaintiff to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 6. A contention was raised before the trial court that the legal representatives of defendant No. 6, namely Smt. H Surekha, is not the legal heir of defendant No. 6. Hence, liberty was granted to the defendants to raise this objection during the trial, and if Smt. H Surekha is not the legal heir of defendant No. 6, the defendants are at liberty to seek framing of an issue in this regard. 3. The order on IA No. 4 was passed in the year 2024 and is challenged in the present writ petition filed on 30.01.2026. The order passed on IA No. 6 dated 18.12.2025 was to bring the legal representatives of defendant No. 6 on record, and it was observed by the trial court that liberty was reserved to the defendants to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 raise objections as to whether Smt. H Surekha is the legal heir of defendant No. 6 or not. 4. Further, defendant No. 1 has presented this petition challenging the orders dated supra. 5. This Court notes the decision reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745 of the Supreme Court of India between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs B. GURAPPA NAIDU AND OTHERS, wherein, it is observed as under: “....35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal....”. The principles governing the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution are well settled and are to be applied with restraint. This power is extraordinary in nature and is meant to be invoked only in cases of unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the subordinate court or tribunal. It is not a roving commission to correct errors of fact or law that do not appear on the face of the record, nor is it a substitute for an appeal. This Court, when exercising this jurisdiction under Article 227, does not sit as a court of first appeal to reappreciate or reweigh evidence or findings of fact made by the subordinate court. 6. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the impugned orders do not attract any of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076742026 NC: 2026:KHC:46779 WP No. 3695 of 2026 the grounds warranting interference. The trial court, in its orders on IA No. 4 and IA No. 6, acted within its jurisdiction by allowing the respective parties to bring legal representatives on record and by reserving liberty to the defendants to raise objections regarding the legal heir status of defendant No. 6. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated, and no unwarranted assumption or abuse of jurisdiction has been established. The petitioner, moreover, lacks locus standi to challenge these orders and is not an aggrieved party. The trial court has already provided a remedy by granting liberty during the trial, rendering this Court's intervention unnecessary. Therefore, the writ petition stands rejected accordingly. Sd/- (B.PRAMOD) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8