Karnataka HC Rejects Brother’s Review, Says Stay On Final Decree Does Not Bar Share-Demarcation Proceedings

In brief

The question

1. Whether the writ order contained an error apparent on the face of the record, or another ground warranting review, because it allegedly failed to consider the petitioner’s synopsis and documents concerning overlapping properties, pending appeals, and undetermined shares.

The court held

The Court dismissed the review petition, holding that none of the grounds raised justified reviewing its order dated 27 July 2026.

It also directed

All interlocutory applications in the review petition were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of the High Court’s order dismissing his writ petition challenging the trial court’s appointment of a Court Commissioner to demarcate shares under a preliminary decree.

pp. 4–5, 10

He argued that the writ order had overlooked his synopsis and documents concerning overlapping properties and proceedings in two suits, pending second appeals, and stays on drawing final decrees.

pp. 5–10

He also contended that the preliminary decree had not determined the shares of certain defendants, making demarcation premature.

pp. 5–10

The High Court considered the review petition at admission.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the writ order contained an error apparent on the face of the record, or another ground warranting review, because it allegedly failed to consider the petitioner’s synopsis and documents concerning overlapping properties, pending appeals, and undetermined shares.

pp. 5–10, 11–12

ii.2. Whether appointment of a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC was inconsistent with the interim order staying the drawing of the final decree while permitting other proceedings to continue.

p. 11

03Law Applied

The petitioner invoked Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which provides the statutory basis for review.

p. 4

The Court considered the appointment of a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC in the context of the interim order permitting proceedings to continue but restraining the drawing of the final decree without leave of the Court.

p. 11

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a separate, detailed test for review.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114 Section 47

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the trial court had appointed the Commissioner to demarcate shares in accordance with the preliminary decree and that the stay in the pending second appeal concerned drawing the final decree, not continuation of other proceedings.

pp. 10–11

It stated that the underlying writ order had addressed the distinction between continuing proceedings and drawing the final decree.

p. 11

Having considered the review grounds, including the asserted overlap between properties and pending appeals, the Court found no ground warranting review and held that the trial court’s order was sustainable.

pp. 11–12