- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593012026 NC: 2026:KHC:51989 WP No. 27530 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27530 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.K.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE N.S. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A NO.241, 3RD MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI STYANARAYAN CHALKE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PAPAMMA, W/O LATE CHANNAPPA, R/A MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU- 562123 2. SRI. NATARAJ, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, R/A MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562123 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593012026 NC: 2026:KHC:51989 WP No. 27530 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.22.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.17/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Saravana, learned counsel for Sri.Satyanarayan Chalke, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 22.10.2020, whereby the appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, came to be rejected by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on the ground of maintainability. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593012026 NC: 2026:KHC:51989 WP No. 27530 of 2026 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the amendment introduced by the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 (for short, ‘the 2023 Act’), the appeal is maintainable before the District Judge. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The impugned order is dated 22.10.2020, which is much prior to the enactment of the 2023 Act, and the said order is justifiable as on the date of its passing. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal may be restored in view of the 2023 Act. However, the present petition has been filed after a lapse of more than five years and nine months. It would suffice if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the District Court, in view of the 2023 Act, subject to all exceptions available in law. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593012026 NC: 2026:KHC:51989 WP No. 27530 of 2026 7. Except for the above observations, the writ petition is not entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30