SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O HUCHHANAGOUDA BALOTAGI vs SMT. SHAILA W/O LATE BASAVARAJ BALOTAGI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 106963 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O HUCHHANAGOUDA BALOTAGI
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
ST
R/O MANJUNATH NILAY, 1 MAIN,
SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND M. TELI AND
SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. SHAILA W/O LATE BASAVARAJ BALOTAGI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007.
2. SMT. UJWALA W/O SHIVAYOGI SHELIKERI
D/O HUCCHANAGOUDA BALOTAGI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O #168/7, APPAJI NILAYA, CHAMUNDESHWARI
ND
LAY OUT, YARANYAPUR, 2 MAIN, III CROSS,
VIDYARANYAPUR, BENGALURU-01.
3. SHRI. SHEKARAPPA S/O YELLAPPA BASAPUR
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O TONDIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: YALBURGA,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL -583231.
4. SHRI. VARADAYYA S/O SHARANAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GEDAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: YALBURGA,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.
5. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O CHIDAMBAR DESHAPANDE
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, PART I,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580007.
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
6. SHRI. CHIDAMBAR S/O KRISHNAJI DESHAPANDE
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, PART I,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580007.
7. SHRI. VIMAL S/O CHIDAMBAR DESHAPANDE
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, PART I,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580007.
8. SHRI. ANIKHET S/O CHIDAMBAR DESHAPANDE
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, PART I,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580007.
9. KUMARI. AKSHATAA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ BALOTAGI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007.
10. ANNAPURNA W/O SHIVANAND BALOTAGI
AGE: 47, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O MANJUNATH NILAY, I MAIN,
SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007.
11. AMARNATH S/O SHIVANAND BALOTAGI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE,
R/O MANJUNATH NILAY, I MAIN,
SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007.
12. VARADAYYA S/O CHANNAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GEDAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: YALBURGA,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.
13. IRAMMA W/O SHIVANAND BALOTAGI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT POST: HIREBANNIGOLA, TQ: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
14. BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVANAND BALOTAGI
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN
IRAMMA W/O SHIVANAND BALOTAGI
(DEF.10/ RESP.13 I.E., HIS NATURAL MOTHER)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
15. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O ANDANAYYA CHIKMATH
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AT POST: HIREBANNIGOLA,
TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BE ISSUED TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON
IA NO. 45 BY LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
DHARWAD IN OS NO. 461/2014 DATED 01-07-2026 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 461/2014, a
suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking partition and
separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
Defendant No.1/petitioner herein has filed a detailed
written statement seeking dismissal of the suit. He has
also filed additional written statement. However, no
counterclaim is made by the defendant.
2. It appears that the trial Court initially granted an interim
order of injunction on 11.02.2015, restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties
pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
defendant No.1/petitioner herein preferred
M.A.No.23/2015. The said appeal was dismissed on
09.07.2015, while modifying the interim order granted by
the trial Court.
3. By the said order, both the plaintiff and the defendants
were restrained from alienating the suit schedule
properties described in Schedules ‘A’ to ‘E’. The Appellate
Court also restrained the plaintiff from withdrawing or
utilising the fixed deposit amounts of ₹13,00,000/- and
₹2,65,000/-, deposited by defendant No.1, pending
disposal of the suit.
4. Things stood thus, an application under Section 151 CPC
came to be filed by defendant No.1/petitioner herein on
14.01.2026 seeking direction to the plaintiff to deposit
₹
15,65,000/- along with accrued interest before the Court
or in a Nationalized Bank. The said application was
apparently filed in furtherance to the modification of the
order dated 09.07.2015 by the Appellate Court in
M.A.No.23/2015. On contest, the trial Court rejected the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
said application by the impugned order. Being aggrieved
by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to paragraph
30 of the written statement, contends that defendant
No.1/petitioner herein had indeed specifically pleaded
₹
about the said fixed deposit amount of 15,65,000/-. That
the application was filed in furtherance to the order passed
by the Appellate Court restraining the plaintiff from
withdrawing the said amount.
6. Learned counsel also refers to the deposition of PW-1 to
contend that PW-1 has admitted to having withdrawn the
said amount for the purpose of prosecuting the suit. Thus,
the trial Court has not considered these three aspects of
the matter even while rejecting the application. Hence,
seeks for allowing of the petition.
7. Heard. Perused the records.
8. As already noted, defendant No.1/petitioner herein has not
made any counterclaim and has merely sought for
dismissal of the suit. The First Appellate Court in
M.A.No.23/2015 vide order dated 09.07.2015 had
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
restrained the plaintiff from withdrawing or utilising the
said fixed amount. The present application is filed
apparently on the premise of violation of the said order
passed by the First Appellate Court in which plaintiff has
apparently withdrawn the said money for the purpose of
prosecuting the suit.
9. The trial Court, at paragraph 10 of the impugned order,
while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, has
reasoned as under:
“10. On careful scrutiny of order passed supra and
the objection filed by the plaintiff it clearly discloses
that the plaintiffs are restrained from withdrawing
the FD amount as well as the amount paid by
defendant No.1 i.e., total Rs.15,65,000/-. Moreover,
the plaintiff has already admitted that he has been
utilized the amount released in his favour. Therefore,
there is no any order by the appellate court directing
the plaintiffs to deposit the amount deposited as FD
along with other amount before the court in the
order passed by appellate court in MA No.23/2015 as
contended by defendant No.1. So, in the absence of
appellate court order to the effect that deposit of
amount before the court by the plaintiffs is not just
and proper. Further, the defendant No.1 is having
power to prosecute the plaintiffs for breach of order
passed by the court as not to alienate or withdraw
the amount observed by the appellate court in MA
No.23/2015. However, the defendant No.1 failed to
made out sufficient grounds to allow the application.
With these observation, this court answer point No.1
in the negative.”
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16949
WP No. 106963 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020148242026
10. As rightly taken note of by the trial Court, if there has
been any violation or willful disobedience of the order
passed by the Appellate Court, it is open for the petitioner
to pursue the appropriate remedy as contemplated under
law.
11. Besides, if the petitioner has any claim over the said fixed
deposit, it is also open to seek such remedy in respect of
the said fixed deposit as may be permissible under law.
dismissed
12. Petition lack merits and accordingly .
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12