Karnataka High Court
Sri Nanjunda Reddy vs Sri Shivanna on 15 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
WP No. 5866 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 5866 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 5752 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 5866/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARYANA REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SRI RAMASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M (BY SRI UMESH B.N, ADV.)
S
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI NANJUNDA REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
2. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 ARE
RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
WP No. 5866 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023
HC-KAR
SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O KULLA REDDY
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)
DIED ON 03.11-2017 LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF CHOWDAPPA
ARE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS
NO.1-5 HEREIN ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A BENDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
NERALURU POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
4. SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O NARAYANA REDDY
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BOMMASANDRA POST
ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
5. SMT SUNANDAMMA
W/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY
@ VENKATASWAMY REDDY
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A NERIGA VILLAGE
KOOGUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
SURYA CITY, PHASE-II
KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
WP No. 5866 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023
HC-KAR
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R-6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 04.01.2023 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-6 UNDER
ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION -151 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE IN F.D.P NO. 04 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL ASS FOUND AT ANNX-A.
IN WP NO. 5752/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI NANJUNDA REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI
VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
2. SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
3. SRI RAMASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL
TALUK - 562 106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O KULLA REDDY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
WP No. 5866 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023
HC-KAR
(SINCE DECASED BY LRS)
DIED ON 03.11.2017 LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF CHOWDAMMA
ARE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 6 HEREIN ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
4. SMT. SHANTHAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT BENDIGANAHALLI
VILLAGE, NERALURU POST
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 102
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
5. SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O NARAYANA REDDY
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BOMMASANDRA POST
ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
6. SMT. SUNANDAMMA
W/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY
@ VENKATASWAMY REDDY
D/O LATE KULLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A NERIGA VILLAGE
KOOGUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
SURYA CITY, PHASE-II
KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. ANAND, ADV., FOR R-5 & R-6
SRI RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI ADV., FOR R-7;
R-1, R-2 & R-3 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
WP No. 5866 of 2023
C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INID PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD
04/01/2023 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-5 UNDER ORDER I
RULE 10(2) READ WITH SEC 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN F.D.P.NO.4 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. In these two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the order dated 04.01.2023 passed on IA filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 21.11.2022 vide Annexure-A1, passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, in FDP.No.4/2011.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent no.5 - Smt. Shantamma had filed application under Section 151 CPC in FDP.No.4/2011 with a prayer to re- open the case, recall the order dated 22.04.2022 and comply the order dated 23.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15096/2015 by this Court. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 21.11.2022. Thereafter, she had filed another application -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41017 WP No. 5866 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023 HC-KAR under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to implead the Special Land Acquisition Officer as party respondent no.8 to the final decree proceedings, and the said application was allowed vide order dated 04.01.2023. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, the petitioners herein who are the brothers of respondent no.5 have filed these two writ petitions.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the final decree proceedings was already closed and the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.169/1997 had attained finality. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in re-opening the case in FDP.No.4/2011. He submits that three separate prayers are made in one application filed under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to re-open the case, recall the order finally disposing of the final decree proceedings and also to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15096/2015 disposed of on 23.09.2020. The same was not permissible. He submits that the Land Acquisition Officer is not a necessary party to the final decree proceedings and the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by respondent no.5 to implead the Land -7- NC: 2025:KHC:41017 WP No. 5866 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023 HC-KAR Acquisition Officer as respondent no.8 to the proceedings. Accordingly, he prays to allow the application.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have argued in support of impugned orders which are challenged in these petitions.
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.169/1997 had attained finality, and subsequently, FDP.No.4/2011 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.169/1997 was closed based on the out of court settlement reported before the court. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no.5 herein had filed an application in FDP No.4/2011 to enlarge her share in the suit schedule property and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Assailing the said order, she had filed W.P.No.15096/2015, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 23.09.2020, and it was held that respondent no.5 would be entitled to seek for amendment of the preliminary decree and consequently for enlargement of her share in the suit schedule property. It was also noted in the said writ petition that the final decree in FDP No.4/2011 was yet to be -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41017 WP No. 5866 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023 HC-KAR drawn. After the order was passed in W.P.No.15096/2015, it appears that an out of court settlement was reported by the plaintiff and the defendants who are the brothers of respondent no.5 and based on such a settlement, the FDP was closed. It is under these circumstances, an application under Section 151 of CrPC was filed by the respondent no.5 before the Trial Court in FDP.No.4/2011 to re-open the case, recall the order dated 22.04.2022 closing the FDP proceedings and to comply the order dated 23.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15096/2015.
7. Inherent powers of the Court needs to be exercised to do complete justice to the parties and also to see that the orders passed by the courts are implemented. In the case on hand, this Court in W.P.No.15096/2015 disposed of on 23.09.2020, having taken note of the fact that final decree in FDP.No.4/2011 is yet to be drawn, has held that respondent no.5 is entitled to seek for amendment of the preliminary decree, and consequently, for enlargement of her share in the suit schedule property and the said order passed in W.P.No.15096/2015 has undisputedly attained finality. If that is so, the said order has to be implemented and the right of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41017 WP No. 5866 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023 HC-KAR respondent no.5 declared under the said order has to be given effect for which the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in FDP proceedings closing the FDP on the basis of out of court settlement reported by the parties to the suit is required to be recalled. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by respondent no.5 under Section 151 of CPC.
8. Respondent no.5, subsequently filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to implead the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Karnataka Housing Board as party respondent no.8 to the final decree proceedings. The material on record would go to show that certain portion of the suit schedule properties were acquired for the purpose of Karnataka Housing Board and the compensation amount was yet to be disbursed. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent no.5 to implead the Special Land Acquisition Officer who would be of assistance to the Trial Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties which arises in FDP.No.4/2011. I do not find any illegality or irregularity even
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41017 WP No. 5866 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5752 of 2023 HC-KAR in the said order dated 04.01.2023 passed on the application filed by the respondent no.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking impleadment of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Karnataka Housing Board. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK