SRI. N. CHANDRAPPA v. SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2026-04-27. SRI. N. CHANDRAPPA v. SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - W. P. No. 2150/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. N. CHANDRAPPA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DHARAMARAYASWAMY GUDI BEEDHI VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADV. ,) AND: 1. SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O C. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2 ARE R/AT. GOVINDARAJU BUILDING GANIGARA BEEDHI VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562111. - 2 - W. P. No. 2150/2022 3. SRI. C. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 4. SRI. C. CHINNAPPA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. SRI. C. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.
3 TO 5 ARE R/AT DHARAMARAYASWAMY GUDI BEEDHI VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. , FOR R1 & R2 R3 TO R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W. P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN M. A. NO. 13/2020 DATED 14. 12. 2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - W. P. No. 2150/2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 14. 12. 2021 passed in M. A. No. 13/2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner filed O. S. No.
11/2015 for the relief of specific performance of the contract. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the petitioner which came to be rejected vide order dated 09. 06. 2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an appeal in M. A. No. 13/2020 and the Appellate Court also confirmed the rejection of the application vide order dated 14. 12. 2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly - 4 - W. P. No. 2150/2022 submit that the trial in the aforesaid suit is concluded and the parties have commenced the arguments also. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to raise the ground with regard to the impugned order in the appeal if he fails in the suit. 6.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No. : 2 Sl No. : 4
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.