Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nanjegowda @ Muninanjappa vs Smt. Munirathnamma on 2 November, 2023
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 21671 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NANJEGOWDA @ MUNINANJAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3. SRI DEVARAJ
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
4. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4
Location: High R/AT DEVAGANAHALLI,
Court Of Karnataka KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMESH N., ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KODIGEHALL
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU- 560014.
SMT PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SONNAPPA
R/AT DEVAGANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
2. SMT. KYATHAMMA
W/O SONNAPPA
MAJOR
3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR
BOTH ARE R/AT DEVAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOOGANAWADI POST,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
SMT. BYAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT DEVAGANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
(2(A) TO 2(D) ALREADY ON
RECORD AS DEF NOS 4 TO 7).
4. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O HANUMAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT DEVAGANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
5. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
MAJOR
R/AT RAMANATHAPURA
KOIRA POST,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
6. SMT. ANANDAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR,
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562110.
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O KARIYAPPA @ DINNESWARA KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT BOMMASANDRA
DEVAGANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU-562110
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
7. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR,
R/AT BOMMAVARA
HOOGANAWADI POST
KUNDANA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
8. SMT. AMBUJA
W/O NAGARAJ
MAJOR
R/AT RAZIPURA, 27TH WARD,
MAHAVEER JAIN VIDYALAYA SCHOOL
13TH CROSS,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
DISMISSAL ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE FIRST
APPELLANT COURT NAMELY THE FIFTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DEVANAHALLI ON 30.08.2023
IN R.A.NO.15029/2023 ON I.A.NO.1 FILED U/S 151 CPC AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners, appellants in R.A.No.15029/2023 on the
file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural, sitting at Devanahalli (for short,
'Appellate Court') are before this Court aggrieved by order
dated 30.08.2023 on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 151 of
CPC refusing to stay the judgment and decree under
appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ramesh.N., for
petitioners/appellants. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants
would submit that Appellate Court is not justified in
rejecting application filed under Section 151 of CPC to stay
the judgment and decree under appeal on the ground that
application is filed under Section 151 of CPC and it is not
filed under proper provision. Learned counsel would
submit that wrong mentioning of provision is not a ground
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
to reject the application. Further, learned counsel would
submit that Trial Court is also not justified in rejecting I.A
for stay on the ground that it is only a preliminary decree.
It is submitted that on the strength of judgment and
decree, respondents may try to change the revenue
records. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for stay of
judgment and decree under appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners/appellants and on perusal of the writ
petition papers, I am of the view that no ground is made
out to interfere with impugned order.
5. No doubt, wrong mentioning of provision is not
a ground to dismiss the application. Even though the
application is filed under Section 151 of CPC for stay of
judgment and decree under appeal, the Appellate Court
ought to have considered the same as application filed
under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. Further, Appellate Court is
justified in rejecting application on the ground that
judgment and decree is only a preliminary decree. Only
NC: 2023:KHC:38894
WP No. 21671 of 2023
after final decree proceedings, decree could be given effect
to. If the respondents/plaintiffs try to change the revenue
entries, it is open for the petitioners/appellants to move
the Appellate Court with appropriate application.
With the above, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
