- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 44301 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: INDIRA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. PRASHANTH, TOWDABETTU, POST: KATPADY, KOTE VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI-574 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.K.ACHARYA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHU KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUTHU POOJARTHI, NEAR MANJUNATH WOOD WORKS, KUDMUL RANGARAO ROAD, AMBAGILU, PUTTUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK. 2. SUSHILA KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUTHU POOJARTHI, NEAR KALKUDA TEMPLE, BANNANJE, UDUPI-576 101. 3. RATHNA KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUTHU POOJARTHI, W/O. RAMAPPA POOJARY, NEAR MANJUNATH WOOD WORKS, KUDMUL RANGARAO ROAD, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 AMBAGILU, PUTTUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK. 4. SINDHU POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. LATE ANNAYYA POOJARY, 5. GULABI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, 6. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, 7. PUSHPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, 8. VARIJA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, 9. USHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT POLYA MELMANE, PO UCHILA, MULOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK. 10. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, 11. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 12. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, 13. GUNAVATHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, 14. SHAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, 15. RATHNAKARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT DEVIKRUPA HOUSE, MATTU VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK. 16. SRI. SADU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. CHINNU POOJARTHI, RESIDING AT DEVI KRUPA, ADARSH NAGAR, CHILIMBI HILL, ASHOK NAGAR POST, MANGALURU. 17. YASHODHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O. KANTHU POOJARTHI, RESIDING AT MATTU KOPPALA, POST KATAPADY, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 18. SUNDARI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE LOKESH KOTIAN, MATTU VILLAGE, POST: MATTU, UDUPI TALUK. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 19. USHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. LATE LOKESH, W/O. ASHOK, NEAR TODDY SHOP, PO KATAPADY, UDUPI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R18 & 19-DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:29.03.2021; NOTICE TO R3, R5 TO R15-DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD:12.01.2024; R1 & 17 ARE SERVED; V/O/DTD: 03.06.2025-WP AGAINST R2 & 16-DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2017 PASSED IN RP NO.NIL IN OS.NO.90/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUGE AND JMFC, UDUPI VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO RESTORE THE SUIT IN OS NO.90/2010 AND TO HEAR THE PLAINTIFF ON ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.1 FRAMED IN OS NO.90/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. None appears for the respondents despite service. In view of the fact that the matter is pending since the year 2017, the Court is taking up this matter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 2. The present petition has been filed petitioner/plaintiff No.3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge an order dated 15.03.2017 in the Review Petition No.(Nil) passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). The Review Petition was filed challenging a Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2005 in O.S.No.90/2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the “order passed in the Original Suit”). 3. The order passed in the Original Suit while deciding the Additional Issue No.1 has rejected the plaint. 4. The operative portion of the order in the Original Suit is as set out below: “In view of answering Addl.issue No.1 in the negative, the suit of the plaintiff is rejected” 5. Against this order dated 23.02.2015, the petitioner/plaintiff No.3 filed a review petition setting out that the order dated 23.02.2015 suffers from an infirmity inasmuch as the order rejected the plaint, in view of the fact that court fee paid was not sufficient. The learned Trial Court by the order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 rejected the review petition by holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and thus the question of review does not arise. 6. A query has been put to learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant No.3 that since the plaint has been rejected, his remedy lies under a separate provision of law and that this petition is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner although fairly concedes that his remedy does lie, in the alternative, he submits that the Court still has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the case. 8. This Court is unable to agree with the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel. Where a statute provides for a specific remedy, it is settled that the remedy should be exercised in law. 9. Undisputedly, in the present case, a suit was filed for partition and separation of shares. The respondents /defendants appeared in the suit and filed the written statement denying that the petitioner was entitled to a share. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 They further submitted that actual physical possession of the subject property was not with the plaintiffs but with the defendants. 10. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court. “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy right jointly in favour of Muthu Poojarthi, Annanya Poojary and Sanju Poojarthy in respect of suit A schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that that the plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the first defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 4. Whether the first defendant proves that the suit is bad for partial partition? 5. Whether the first defendant proves that the suit schedule properties are libel to be divided as per the provisions of Aliyasanthana Law? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for share as claimed in the plaint? 7. What order or decree?” 11. In addition, an Additional Issue was framed by the learned Trial Court on 16.02.2015 which is as follows: “1. Whether the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is proper? 2. What order or decree?” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:133 WP No. 44301 of 2017 12. By its order dated 16.02.2015, the learned Trial Court treated the issue No.1 as the preliminary issue and as stated above, after hearing the arguments on the preliminary issue, has rejected the plaint and it has held that although an opportunity was offered to the plaintiffs with regard to the issue of court fee, the plaintiffs have contended that court fee paid is sufficient. In addition, it has been held that the plaintiffs have been unable to show that they are in physical possession of the subject property. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has rejected the plaint. 13. As stated above, once a plaint is rejected, the remedy of the plaintiffs would be in filing an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. However, instead, petitioner/plaintiff No.3 chose to challenge the order before this Court. In view of the availability of alternate remedy, this Court finds no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA