- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3900 WP No. 17486 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.17486 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A. AJITH PRASAD S/O K.V. ANANTHAPADMANABHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, #245, SAMRUDDHI, NEAR THE REGENCY PUBLIC SCHOOL, A.M.S. LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097. 2. SRI M.A. MAHAVEER S/O K.V. ANANTHAPADMANABHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, MERCHANT, MANDIKAL VILLAGE AND POST, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101. 3. SMT. SUCHARITHA .K D/O K.V. ANANTHAPADMANABHAIAH, W/O PHANEENDRA KUMAR S.N. AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, #1849, SAMYAK, 4TH MAIN, “F” BLOCK, DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE, KANAKADASA NAGARA, MYSORE-570022. 4. SMT. M.A. KALPANA D/O K.V. ANANTHAPADMANABHAIAH, W/O H.N. PRABHACHAND, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, #232, SANTHRUPTHI, 8TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3900 WP No. 17486 of 2022 NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI AMARANARAYANACHARI S/O LATE RAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE RAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI NANJUNDACHARI S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SRI RATHNAMACHARI S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 5. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 6. SRI KONDACHARI S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYAN CHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 7. SRI SATHYANARAYANA CHARI S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 8. SRI KRISHNA CHARI S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT JEEGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3900 WP No. 17486 of 2022 CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V. GANGI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-8) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.221/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GUDIBANDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. This Court had passed the following order on the last date of hearing: “2. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 08.07.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gudibande, on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.221/2017. By the impugned order, the application - I.A.No.7, which had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution, was allowed by the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely upon an order dated 17.12.2021, by which I.A.No.7 was dismissed. He submits that the impugned order suffers from an infirmity inasmuch as it allowed an application which previously had been dismissed by the Court. He further seeks to rely upon another order dated 17.06.2022, which had observed that the compromise petition that has been filed by the parties would be heard and orders would be passed on 08.07.2022. It is apposite to extract - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3900 WP No. 17486 of 2022 both the orders dated 17.12.2021 and 17.06.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court below: Order dated 17.12.2021: “Applicant’s Advocate absent. No representation since long. No arguments advanced on I.A.VII. Hence I.A.VII is dismissed for non-prosecution. Call on for P.Evi.” [emphasis supplied] Order dated 17.06.2022: “Compromise Petition is filed. Heard. For order by 08/07.” 4. Despite the same, the learned Trial Court, has, by the impugned order, on 08.07.2022, passed the following directions: “I.A.No.7 which is filed by applicants under Order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is permitted the applicants to come on record as parties as they are necessary parties. It is hereby directed to amend the plaint and to furnish amended plaint. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.” [emphasis supplied] 5. Prima facie, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the respondents, to appear in the matter...” 2. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and submits that he does not dispute the fact that the application was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. He, however submits that he had filed an application for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3900 WP No. 17486 of 2022 recall of the said order. However, the said application is still not yet been decided by the learned Trial Court. 3. As stated above, this Court had, after examining the record of the case, found that the application which had been previously dismissed on 17.12.2011 has come to be allowed on 08.07.2022. 4. In view of the aforegoing, the impugned order dated 08.07.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gudibande, on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.221/2017, being without jurisdiction, is set aside. 5. Nothing in this order shall come in the way of the application for recall filed by the respondents. All rights and contentions of both parties are left open in that application to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. 6. Petition is allowed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA