SRI C S CHANDRAPPA vs SRI CHANNAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 12440 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.S.CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RD
R/A NO.83, 3 CROSS,
SHARADANAGAR,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560 065.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESHWARI.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
D-1 DIED ON 15-08-2022,
HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALREADY ON RECORD,
1. SRI. NAGARAJAN
S/O CHENNAPPA,
AGEDA BOUT 55 YEARS,
TRANSPOSED AS PLAINTIFF NO.2,
2. SRI. RANGASHAMAIAH
S/O CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
TRANSPOSED AS PLAINTIFF NO.3,
3. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
(DEFENDANTS 2 TO 3 WERE TRANSPOSED AS
Digitally signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
PLAINTIFFS 2-4),
THE DEFENDANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE
S/O CHANNAPPA (D-1),
THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/A SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE,
DASANAPUARA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 130.
4. SRI. S.C.PADMAIAH
S/O CHANNAPPA (D-1),
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A NO.6084, SUBASHNAGAR,
SOMJI RAO LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 130.
TRANSPOSED AS PLAINTIFF NO.4.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O H.M.SADASHIVAIAH,
R/A NO.HULIKAL VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-561 101.
6. SMT. PRAMEELA
W/O VEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A NO.5065,
“BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA”,
VIJAYNAGAR, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.ASHWATHA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1,
R2 & R4;
SRI. SUBRAMAMANI.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 & R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 29.02.2024
VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA IN OS NO.48/2010.
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated
29.02.2024 in O.S.No.48/2010 passed by the Addl. Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, three
applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff No.1, have
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was plaintiff No.1 before the learned Trial Court
and he had filed three applications being I.A.No.14 under
filed under Section 151 of CPC, to reopen the case and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence by
producing some documents, I.A.No.15 filed under Order
18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC for recalling P.W.1
further examination in chief; and I.A.No.16 under Order 7
Rule 14(3) R/W Section 151 of the CPC for condoning the
delay in production of the documents. Learned counsel
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
further submits that the applications were filed bonafide
and to bring on record few documents. However, it is
contended that the learned Trial Court did not allow these
applications merely on the ground that that there was a
delay in filing these applications.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 who are
the contesting respondents refutes the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the
suit was originally decreed on 28.08.2013. Thereafter, an
appeal was filed before the learned Appellate Court against
the Judgment and Decree passed dated 28.08.2013 by the
defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit. The appeal was partly
allowed by the learned Appellate Court and the order
dated 28.08.2013 was set aside with a direction to the
learned Trial Court to provide an opportunity to
appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 4 to cross-examine
P.Ws.1 and 2 and to lead evidence. Learned counsel
submits that since the remand was only for a specific
purpose, fresh adjudication could not take place by the
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
learned Trial Court as there was no challenge by the
petitioner/plaintiff No.1 to the Judgment and Decree dated
28.08.2013.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 who
have also appeared on the other hand submits that he has
no objections if the prayers of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1
are allowed. He also clarifies that he is co-plaintiff along
with petitioner/plaintiff No.1.
5. This Court has examined the Impugned Order as well
as the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate
Court in R.A.No.238/2013. The Impugned Order is based
on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Trial Court has given
a finding that the remand was for a specific purpose with a
direction to provide an opportunity to defendant Nos.1 and
4 to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 and a further direction to
dispose of the suit as early as possible. In addition, the
learned Trial Court has also given a finding that although
the applications have been filed along with documents, the
averments in the plaint clearly show that suit schedule
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
properties are ancestral properties and there is no
pleading in the suit that the ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘I’, ‘O’ and ‘P’ schedule
properties are self-acquired properties. Thus, the
Impugned Order has been passed dismissing all the three
applications.
6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff No.1 that there are no pleadings qua
the fact ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘I’, ‘O’ and ‘P’ schedule properties are
self-acquired. In addition, the order of the Appellate Court
is also clear inasmuch as it thus sets out that remand is
only for a specific purpose. The relevant extract of the
Appellate Court is below:
“The appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of
the CPC is hereby allowed on payment of cost of
Rs.2,000/-.
The judgment & decree of the Trial Court in
O.S.No.48/2010 dated 28.08.2013 is hereby set-aside.
The suit in O.S.No.48/2010 is remanded to
the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to
provide opportunities appellants/defendant Nos.1
& 4 to cross-examine P.Ws.1 & 2 and to lead their
evidence. To avoid delay, both parties are directed to
co-operate with the trial Court in disposing of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55632
WP No. 12440 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010216742024
7. Given the limited aspect of the remand and the fact
that there is no pleading with respect to the documents
that are sought to be placed on record, at this stage, this
Court does not deem it necessary to interfere with the
Impugned Order while exercising superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is
dismissed. All pending applications stand closed.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
YN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
7