Karnataka High Court
Sri H R Venkatesh vs Smt. Kamalamma on 11 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30956
WP No. 18783 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18783 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI H.R. VENKATESH
S/O LATE. RAMAIAH AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 169, HOODI GARDEN,
2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, WHITE FIELD ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 048.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA
Digitally signed D/O SMT. AKKAYAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
by NAGAVENI
Location: W/O LATE. KEMPANNA
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OF
KARNATAKA R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BESIDE MATA, PILLAGUMPE POST,
HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SMT. PREMA
W/O SRI MUNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SRI MUNE GOWDA
S/O LATE. NARAYANAMMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30956
WP No. 18783 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT
HENNUR VILLAGE,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE,
GOWDARA COLONY, KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
5. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O ANJANAPPA
D/O LATE. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
SMT. BYAMMA
(SINCE DECEASED)
REP. BY HER LR'S BEING SL.NO.6 AND 7
6. SRI NATARAJ
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
7. SRI KRISHNA
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30956
WP No. 18783 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT
KITHAGANOOR VILLAGE,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.
8. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O SMT. AKKAYAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
W/O GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KITHAGANOOR VILLAGE,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.
9. SRI. MUNE GOWDA
S/O SMT. AKKAYAMMA @ AMMAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT JANATHA COLONY, BEHIND POST OFFICE,
BANNERGHATTA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 083.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO THE
HONBLE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH-32) TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SEC 151
OF CPC IN FDP NO. 175/2021, VIDE ANNX-J SINCE THE R-1, 6
TO 9 HAVE ALREADY RELEASED THEIR RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF
THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION TO
CONSIDERING THE FDP NO. 175/2021 FOR EXECUTING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS NO. 6093/1994 VIDE
ANNX-A WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30956
WP No. 18783 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus by issuing the direction
to the Hon'ble XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
at Bengaluru (CCH-32) to consider the application
filed by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2)
read with Section 151 of CPC in FDP.No.175/2021,
vide ANNEXURE-J, since the Respondents 1, 6 to
9 have already released their rights in respect of
the suit schedule properties in favour of the
Petitioner and consequently issue direction to
considering the FDP.No.175/2021, for executing
the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.6093/1994, vide ANNEXURE-A within the
stipulated time limit to meet the ends of justice.
ii) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and necessary under the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. The suit is instituted in the year 1994. The suit
comes to be decreed on 04.10.2007. The petitioner challenges
the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.59/2011 before this court in
RFA.No.1830/2011. The parties enter into a compromise in
RFA. The final decree proceedings are instituted pursuant to the
NC: 2025:KHC:30956
HC-KAR
said compromise on 21.12.2021. It is contended that the said
final decree proceedings is pending adjudication before the
concerned court.
3. The proceedings began in the year 1994 and the
final decree proceedings is now instituted for a compromise
that is entered into in the year 2011. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings by way of
direction to the concerned court to dispose the final decree
proceedings, within an outer limit of six months, if not earlier.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
