SMT. PUSHPA.S v. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
SMT. PUSHPA.S D/O GANGAMMA & SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O MADANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 562 162 (BY SRI. THYAGARAJ.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O KOLUR, ANTRAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVAMALLAIAH @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
NAGENDRA S/O LATE SHIVAMALLAIAH @ SHIVANNA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39674 WP No. 27456 of 2025 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SHIVAMALLAIAH @ SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PRASHANTH.K.S S/O LATE SHIVAMALLAIAH @ SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 5 ARE R/O KEREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 090 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) BY WAY OF A WRIT OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI VE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER, FIXING A TIME LIMIT FOR DISPOSAL OF O.S.NO. 1567/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS OR SUCH TIME AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, SO AS TO PREVENT FURTHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND FURTHER ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39674 WP No. 27456 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Thyagaraj.M., learned counsel petitioner.
2. This Court does not find the need to issue notice to the respondents for the reason that no relief against the respondents is sought by the petitioner, the only relief sought by the petitioner is to dispose of the O.S.No.1567/2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, expeditiously.
3. The petitioner is none other than defendant No.5 in O.S.No.1567/2014. The respondent No.1 is plaintiff who filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties for relief of 1/3rd share and other consequential reliefs. Since the matter was being prolonged, the plaintiff filed a petition before this Court in W.P.No.15450/2023 for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.1567/2014. The same was allowed by order dated
01.08.2023. Despite which the matter is still pending before the trial Court for one reason or the other and the parties are dragging on the matter unnecessarily with deliberate intention to prolong and protract the proceedings. Despite the order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39674 WP No. 27456 of 2025 HC-KAR passed by this Court on 01.08.2023, the matter has not seen light of the day of culmination. The grievance of the petitioner is that defendant Nos.1 to 4 before the trial Court are deliberately protracting the proceedings. The stage of the case presently is for recording evidence of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and cross-examination of D.W.1 is completed by the plaintiff.
Operative part
4. Under the circumstances, as the matter is of the year 2014, I deem it appropriate that the matter requires to be disposed of expeditiously. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) A direction is issued to the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru to dispose of the matter expeditiously on priority and impose exemplary cost on the parties for unnecessarily seeking adjournment and protracting the proceedings. (iii) In view of the fact that the stage of the proceedings is for recording of evidence of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39674 WP No. 27456 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant Nos.1 to 4, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.