Sri Thimmaiah Since Dead by Lrs v. Smt. Doddamangamma

( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(SMT.(JUSTICE(LALITHA(KANNEGANTI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(10497(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:(( ( , SRI,THIMMAIAH,SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRS,

SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRS, , ,

1., SRI.,VENKATESH,, S/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,,

,

2., SMT.,T.,INDIRA, D/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, ,

3., SRI.,HARISHA, D/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, Digitally AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,,signedtiby SUVARNA0T ,

4.,Location: SMT.,MUNIRATHNAMMA, HIGH0COURT D/O,LATE,THIMMAIAH,,, OF AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, KARNATAKA , ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,, UGANAWADI,VILLAGE,,, KASABA,HOBLI,,DEVANAHALLI,TALUK,, BENGALURU,NORTH,-,562,110., …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,ADINARAYANAPPA,,ADVOCATE), ( ( ( AND:( (

1., SMT.,DODDAMANGAMMA, W/O,KARADAIAH,, D/O,LATE,VENKATAPPA,AND,,, SMT.,MUNIYAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,68,YEARS., ,

2., SMT.,CHIKKA,MANGAMMA, W/O,NARASEGOWDA, D/O,LATE,VENKATAPPA,AND,,, SMT.,MUNIYAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS., ,

3., SMT.,NARASAMMA, W/O,HANUMANTHU,, D/O,LATE,VENKATAPPA,AND,, SMT.,MUNIYAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS,, ,

4., SMT.,VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O,MURALI,, D/O,LATE,VENKATAPPA,AND,,, SMT.,MUNIYAMMA,,, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS, ,,

5., SMT.,NARASAMMA, W/O,P.,KRISHNAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,6,YEARS,,, ,

6., SRI.,NARASHIMHAMURTHY, S/O,LATE,CHIKKARANGAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,YEARS,, , ( ( (

7., SRI.,GANGADAHRA, S/,O,LATE,CHIKKARANGAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,YEARS,, ,

8., SRI.,MADHA, S/O,LATE,CHIKKARANGAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,YEARS, ,

9., SRI.,NAGARAJA, S/O,LATE.,CHIKKARANGAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,YEARS, ,

10., SMT.,NARASAMMA, D/O,LATE,DODDAOLAMMA,, AGED,ABOUT,75,YEARS, ,

11., SMT.,SAKAMMA, W/O.,THIMMAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, ,

12., SRI.,S.,MUNIYAPPA, S/O,SUBBEGOWDA,, AGED,ABOUT,85,YEARS,, ,

13., SMT.,SEETHA, D/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS., ,

14., SRI.,SUBRAMANYA, S/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS., ,

15., SRI.,NAGESH, S/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS., ( ( (

16., SMT.,JAYAMMA, W/O,KRISHNEGOWDA,, D/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS, ,

17., SRI.,ASHWATHANARAYANA, S/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, ,

18., SRI.,MUNIRAJU, S/O,S,MUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS, ,

19., SRI.,V.,S.,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPAVY, S/O,SUBBEGOWDA,, AGED,ABOUT,80,YEARS, ,

20., SRI.,SUBBEGOWDA, S/O,V.S.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, ,

21., SMT.,MEENAKSHAMMA, W/O,GANGADHARA,, S/O,V.S.,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS, ,

22., SRI.,CHANDREGODA, S/O,V.S.,CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, ,

23., SMT.,VENKATALAKSHMI, W/O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,68,YEARS, , ( ( (

24., SMT.,KAMALAMMA, W/O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, ,

25., SMT.,RADHA, W/O,DEVRAJ,, D/O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, ,,

26., SRI.,MANJUNATHA,, 8/,O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS, ,

27., SMT.,ANITHA, W/O,KRISHNAPPA,, D/,O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, ,,

28., SRI.,SHIVAKUMAR, S/,O,BASAVARAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS, ,

29., SRI.,MUNIRAJU, S/O,CHIKKONAPPA,@,RAMAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS, , ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,UGANAWADI,VILLAGE,, KASABA,HOBLI,,DEVANAHALLI,TALUK,,, BANGALORE,RURAL,DISTRICT, ,

30., SRI.,PULAGAM,SAMPADA,REDDY, S/O,P.,VISHWANATHA,REDDY,,, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, THR/AT,NO.43,,10 ,CROSS,,, ( ( ( GREEN,PARK,LAYOUT,,, BANASAVADI,,, BENGALURU,-560,043, ,

31., ,SMT.,M.,SAMPOORNA, W/O,M,DHANANJAYA,REDDY,,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,,, RDR/AT,87,,3 ,CROSS,,, BHUVANESHWARI,NAGAR,,, C.V.,RAMANAGAR,POST, ,BENGALURU,-,560,093., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,YATHIRAJ,S.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R14,,R17,,R18,,R20,, AND, R22,, SRI., KRISHNAMURTHY, M.R.,, ADVOCATE, FOR,,,, R23,,R26,AND,R28,,SRI.,KEMPANNA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R30, ,,,,,,R5,,R6,,R7,,R21,,R29,AND,R31,ARE,SERVED), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TOI),CALL,FOR,THE,ENTIRE, RECORDS,PERTAINING,TO,THE,SUIT,IN,MIS.,PET.,NO.07/2018, FROM,THE,FILE,OF,THE,LEARNED,SENIOR,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND, J.M.F.C, AT, DEVANAHALLI., WHICH, IS, PRODUCED, AT, ANNEXURE-H., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,SMT.,JUSTICE,LALITHA,KANNEGANTI, ,

ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: "i) To call for the entire records pertaining to the suit in Mis.Pet.No.07/2018 from the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Devanahalli, hich is produced at Annexure-H.

ii) After perusing the records direct the trail court to consider the I.A.'s under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC, restraining the respondents alienating, encumbering or creating any charges of the suit schedule properties till disposal of the above suit. Which are herewith produced at Annexure-B and C.

iii) And consequently direct the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Devanahalli. To dispose the I.A's and Main suit within the time bound period.

iv) Grant cost of this appeal.

v) And also grant such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶2The father of the petitioners herein has filed OS No. 155/2015 seeking partition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. On

09.01.2018, the petitioners' suit was dismissed for default. On 09.02.2018, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition for restoration of the suit. Thereafter, they filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking an order of injunction. When the Court did not consider the application, the petitioners came before this Court.

¶3A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by the order dated 07.04.2026, granted an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. It was also made clear that the said order would not come in the way of the Trial Court to consider the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in accordance with law. The said order came to be extended from time to time.

¶4Yesterday, i.e., 12.08.2026, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the writ petition had become infructuous, as the miscellaneous petition had been dismissed. By order dated 17.07.2026, the Court dismissed the petition. The Court observed that though the miscellaneous petition was filed in 2018, the petitioners had taken no effective steps to serve the petition and notices on some of the respondents. Without notice, they cannot claim an ex parte interim injunction against respondents.

¶5The Court further observed that, even after a lapse of seven long years, no effective steps had been taken. Hence, the petition against respondent Nos. 13, 15, 16, 24 to 26, 28, and 31 was dismissed. The writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the petition against some of the respondents. Hence, the entire petition was dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law.

¶6When the matter came up yesterday, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter had not become infructuous and that he intended to question the said order. He further submits that, until the said order is questioned, he requires an interim order in his favour. Hence, he submits that the present petition has to be kept pending.

¶7This Court has made it very clear that they are not entitled to seek any injunction in the present petition. Particularly, in light of the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, the writ petition cannot be kept pending. Indicating that this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition, the matter is posted for today.

¶8When the matter came up for consideration today, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents is present. This Court has already given an opportunity to the petitioners and indicated that the present petition will be dismissed. Despite the same, there is no representation on

behalf of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is proceeding to decide the matter.

¶9When a suit was filed in the year 2018 and the same is dismissed for default, thereafter, a miscellaneous petition is filed seeking restoration of the suit, and an application seeking an order of injunction is filed therein. The said injunction application has remained pending for more than eight years, and the petitioners have not even taken steps to serve notice on the respondents. Despite the same, the petitioners have approached this Court and obtained an order restraining alienation. In fact, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any such order from this Court.

¶10When the suit itself has been dismissed and the miscellaneous petition has also been dismissed, there is no reason to keep the present writ petition pending. Now that the miscellaneous petition itself has been dismissed, all the more reason for this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶11If the miscellaneous petition were pending, this Court would have directed the Trial Court to dispose of the

application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Since the miscellaneous petition itself has been dismissed, nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition.

¶12In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3