logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 526 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi)
Case No : Writ Petition No. 201836 Of 2026 (GM-CPC)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Parties : Mahadevi & Another Versus Avilash & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Yashas S. Dikshit., Advocate. For the Respondents: -------
Date of Judgment : 29-04-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-K 3794,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
- CPC

2. Catch Words:
- Mandamus
- Injunction
- Permanent injunction
- Partition
- Null and void

3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a mandamus directing the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, to hear and dispose of Interlocutory Application No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC in OS No. 183/2022. The trial court had issued summons on the IA but failed to pass any order on it despite the passage of time and repeated requests. The High Court noted that while it generally refrains from directing trial courts, the undue delay justified intervention. Consequently, the court ordered the trial court to consider the IA and pass appropriate orders within two months after receipt of the order. No notice to respondents was required as no specific relief was sought against them.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the Nature of Mandamus Directing the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Sindagi to hear the parties on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No. 183/2022, which is produced at Annexure-B.)

Oral Order

1. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi to hear the parties on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in OS No.183/2022, which is produced at Annexure-B and to dispose f the said application.

2. Since, no specific reliefs are sought against respondents-herein, service of notice to respondents is dispensed with.

3. Petitioners herein and three others have filed OS No.183/2022 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Sindagi seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, declaration of registered sale deed dated 09.09.2023 executed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 as null and void and not binding on the share of the plaintiffs and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction in the said suit. Plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC along with plaint in OS No.183/2022. Grievance of the petitioners is that the said I.A.No.1 has not been considered till date by the Trial Court and inspite of repeated requests made on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court has not passed any orders on the same and has proceeded to record the evidence of the parties.

4. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court in OS No.183/2022 would go to show that I.A.No.1 was filed along with plaint on 28.03.2022 before the Trial Court. On 31.03.2022, the Trial Court had issued suit summons and notice on I.A.No.1 to the defendants. All the defendants have been served before the Trial Court. Though the Trial Court has passed orders on several other interlocutory applications filed subsequently by the parties, no order has been passed till date on I.A.No.1 by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein are justified in seeking a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the said application.

5. Though, normally this Court does not issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the Trial Court to dispose off the suit or pending applications before the Trial Court, in the present case, the application is filed along with plaint on 28.03.2022 and perusal of the ordersheet would go to show that no orders have been passed on the same till date. The Trial Court is not justified in keeping said application pending, when the plaintiffs are insisting to consider the same and pass orders.

6. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in OS No.183/2022 and pass orders on the same in accordance with law, after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 
  CDJLawJournal