- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31998 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VENKATAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN – 562 149 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS, 2. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI, D/O LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS 3. SMT. UMAMMA W/O LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED 57 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAHADEVA KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN – 562 149. 4. SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANNAYAPPA, AGED 83 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 5. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED 58 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 ARE R/A MAHADEVA KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN – 562 149. 6. C. MANJUNATH S/O P. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A BAGALURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN – 562 149. 7. K. S. BASAVARAJ S/O K. S. SRIKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT K R PET, KEKKERI ROAD, BEHIND BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN – 571 426 8. M. KRUPAKARA S/O LAET SRI MADHAVA REDDY, AGED 68 YEARS, R/A VIDYANAGAR 2ND CROSS, T. DASRAAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. 9. MARKANDAYA M., D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA AGED 63 YEARS, R/A MAHADEVA KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN – 562 149. 10. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O RAMAKKA W/O CHINNAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A AREY BANIMANGALA, BUDIGERE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN – 562 129. 11. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O BALARAJU D/O RAMAKKA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, EWS, HEBBAL, 1ST STAGE, 3RD MAIN, MYSORE – 570 016. 12. SRI. SRINIVAS, S/O RAMAKKA, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A NO. 806, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH E CROSS, PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 021. 13. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O RAMAKKA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A NO. 103, SHAMPURA OPP. INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK, ARABIK COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU – 560 045. 14. SMT. SARASWATHI, D/O RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO. 367, 3RD CROSS, THAMMANA GARDEN, LINGARAJ PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANMUGAM YADAV M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 15.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO. XI IN FDP NO. 6/2011 BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 CIVIL JUDGE BY JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-G BY ALLOWING I.A NO. X1. 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 This petition by respondent No.7 in FDP No.6/2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli is directed against the impugned order, whereby the application I.A.No.XI filed by the petitioner seeking stay of further proceedings pending disposal of O.S.No.337/2018 was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 18.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.460/2006, the respondents instituted final decree proceedings in the instant FDP No.6/2011, in which the petitioner is impleaded as respondent No.7 and is contesting the said proceedings. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the Final - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 Decree Proceedings, the petitioner has instituted one more suit in O.S.No.337/2018 and accordingly, filed the instant application seeking stay of further proceedings in FDP No.6/2011 till disposal of the suit filed by him. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: ORDER ON I.A. No. XI The instant application has been filed by the counsel for respondent No.7 U/Sec.10 and 151 of C.P.C to stay the further proceedings of present petition, pending disposal of O.S.No.337/2018 on the file of this court. 2. In the affidavit, the respondent No.7 has stated that the petitioners have filed the present petition for demarcation of suit schedule properties as per the Preliminary Decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006 dated 18.12.2010. The respondent No.7 was not a party to the said suit. The respondent No.7 came to know that she has been impleaded as a party in the present proceeding. Subsequently, she filed O.S.No.337/2018 seeking Partition and Separate Possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. She has also sought to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No.263/2006 is not binding upon her. In O.S.No.337/2018 the process has been completed. The appeal preferred by the Venkatashamappa in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 RFA.No.620/2011 is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The respondent No.7 has filed application to stay the further proceedings and accordingly by order the further proceeding of O.S.No.337/2018 has been stayed. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide, order dated 26.07.2024 disposed off RFA.No.620/2011 by confirming the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.463/2006. However, in the order it is directed that O.S.No.337/2018 to be tried and disposed off on merits. No one has challenged the said Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka all the impleading respondents are to be struck-out and till disposal of O.S.No.337/2018, the petitioners have no right to proceed with the present matter. The subject matter of both proceedings are one and the same. The applicant is entitled to proceed with O.S.No.337/2018. If the application is allowed no hardship will be caused to the other side. Hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. The counsel for petitioners filed objection to the present application by stating that the same is not maintainable under law. It is stated that the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein has been dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide, order dated 26.07.2024 in O.S.No.460/2006, the court has already allotted a share in favour of Muniyamma and the respondent No.7 cannot claim independent right over the suit schedule properties. The liberty is given to the parties to put fourth their contention in O.S.No.337/2018. Hence, prayed to reject the application with cost. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 4. Heard both sides. 5. The following points would arise for my consideration: 1) Whether the respondent No.7 has made out grounds to stay the proceedings of this case till disposal of O.S.No.337/2018 ? 2) What order ? 6. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1 :- This a final decree proceedings initiated in continuation of the preliminary decree dated 18.12.2010, passed by this court in O.S.No.463/2006. The respondents No.1 and 2 preferred RFA.No.620/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by challenging the preliminary decree and the appeal came to be dismissed vide, order dated 26.07.2024. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has given liberty to the parties to try and adjudicate their rights in O.S.No.337/2018, which came to be filed by the present applicant. On careful perusal of the order there is no direction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 to stay the proceedings of this case till disposal of O.S.No.337/2018. It is pertinent to note here that the present case and O.S.No.337/2018 are independent cases. As per section 10 of C.P.C there is provision for stay of subsequent suit by the court in respect of the cases pending as to the same subject matter between the same parties. However, in the present set of facts, in O.S.No.463/2006 the Judgment and decree passed on 18.12.2010. The present case is pending in respect of final de-cree proceedings. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that section 10 of C.P.C is not applicable to the case on hand. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has relied upon the following decisions: 1. AIR 2011 SC 1137 2. AIR 2012 SC 1476 3. 2017 (1) KCCR 113 4. 2023 Live Law (SC) 262. 9. The decisions are pertaining to powers of the civil courts for stay of suits. The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has vehemently argued that U/Sec.151 of C.P.C this court has inherent power to stay the further proceeding of this case till disposal of O.S.No.337/2018. In para No.8 of the affidavit the respondent No.7 has stated that as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA.No.620/2011, the petitioners cannot proceed further in the present case. However, as observed supra, there is no such order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 inherent power vested with this court shall be exercised in a judicious manner. In the present case, the staying of the present proceedings will cause hurdle to the parties to enjoy the fruits of the decree dated 18.12.2010, passed in O.S.No.463/2006. It is pertinent to note that the preliminary decree came to be passed about 14 years ago and still the Final Decree proceedings is pending. The respondent No.7 has the liberty to get adjudicate her right before the competent court in O.S.No.337/2018. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly contended that in the Preliminary Decree in O.S.No.463/2006 a share has been allotted to Muniyamma and the respondent No.7 cannot claim independent right. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to invoke the inherent power vested in this court to stay the further proceedings of this Final Decree Proceedings. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 10. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings, this court proceed to pass the following: O R D E R I.A. No.XI filed by the respondent No.7 U/Sec.10 and 151 of C.P.C is hereby rejected with cost of Rs.500/-.” 4. As rightly noticed and held by the trial Court, the provisions contained in Section 10 of CPC would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the suit in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 O.S.No.337/2018 was filed subsequent to institution of FDP No.6/2011 and the final decree proceedings were prior/previous to the suit, which was subsequent in point of time and consequently, Section 10 of CPC would have no application to the facts of the instant case. 5. 5. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the final decree proceedings, which are nothing but a continuation of the preliminary decree proceedings cannot be stalled merely because the petitioner has instituted one more suit subsequently, and it is open for the petitioner to ventilate his grievances in the said suit filed by him. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2087 WP No. 31998 of 2024 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby dismissed. ii) Liberty is however reserved in favour of the petitioner to prosecute O.S.No.337/2018 filed by him in accordance with law. iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81