Karnataka High Court
Sri Naryana Reddy vs Sri Nanjunda Reddy 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
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
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
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
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
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
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
NC: 2025:KHC:41017
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
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
