Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 45896 (KAR)

SRI VENKATESH v. SRI J Y MUNI REDDY

WP/747/2026 · 2026-01-12

S R Krishna Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1758 WP No. 747 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED BOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 60, 13TH CROSS ROAD, KACHARKANAHALLI, THOMUS TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 084. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J. Y. MUNI REDDY S/O LATE KAMALAMMA AND LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT JANTHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN – 560 087 2. SRI. VENKATASWMAY REDDY S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN – 560 105 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1758 WP No. 747 of 2026 3. SRI. H. V. RAMESH S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN – 560 105 4. SRI. H. V. MANJUNATH, S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN – 560 105 5. SRI. H. V. RAVEENDRA, S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, 16TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 030. 6. SRI. H. V. SHASHIBHUSHAN, S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, 16TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 030 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R1; SRI. S. GANGADHARA AITHAL, ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R2 AND R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/12/2025 ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 361/2019 PASSED BY THE 9TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1758 WP No. 747 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction and to quash the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 on an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.361/2019 passed by the 9th Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru as per Annexure-A to the writ petition and consequently to allow the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC. b) To pass such other order/s as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 5 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1758 WP No. 747 of 2026 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in the said suit in O.S.No.361/2019 filed by the respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit itself has been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2026. Accordingly, nothing further survives in the present petition and it is hereby disposed of. 4. It is however directed that the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2026 passed in O.S.No.361/2019 passed by the 9th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and any observations, findings, orders recorded therein would not be binding upon the petitioner nor would it affect his alleged right, title, interest and possession, if any, over the suit schedule property. 5. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10