M/S Aeroweld Industries v. Ashok Dwarakanath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12434 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶1M/S AEROWELD INDUSTRIES, NO.B-9, HAL ANCILLARY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU - 560 037. (BY ITS SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE, NIRMALA DAS AND VASUNDRA DAS).

¶2NIRMALA DAS, W/O. LATE N. KISHEN DAS, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶3VASUNDHARA DAS, D/O. LATE N. KISHEN DAS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.38, 11TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR CHAKRAVARTHI M V., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1ASHOK DWARAKANATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.K. DWARKANATH,

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:22460( WP(No.(12434(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

2., CHAYA,AJAY,KUMAR,, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS,, D/O,LATE,B.K.,DWARKANATH,,, (REPRESENTED,BY,P.A,HOLDER, SANTHOSH,DWARKANATH)., ,

3., SANTHOSH,DWARKANATH,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, S/O.,LATE,B.K.,DWARKANATH,, ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,NO.23,,, STUMA,VILAS,,1 ,CROSS,,, MALLESWARAM,,, BENGALURU,-,560,003., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.CHETHANA,MANJUNATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.B.S.MANJUNATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R1,TO,R3), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, THE, RECORDS,IN,FDP,NO.79/2023,ON,THE,PENDING,FILE,OF,THE, XIX,ADDL.,CITY,CIVIL,AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE,AT,BENGALURU, CITY, (CCH-18),, AND, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, BY, QUASHING,THE,IMPUGNED,ORDER,DATED,17-03-2026,PASSED, ON, IA-1/2024, AS, BEING, ILLEGAL,, WITHOUT, JURISDICTION,, AND, CONTRARY, TO, ARBITRATION, LAW, AND, THE, INDIAN, PARTNERSHIP,ACT,VIDE,ANNEXURE,-,A,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, ,

ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge in FDP No.79/2023 on I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the respondents herein.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶3The petitioners/Respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.4223/2018 on the file of XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, for dissolution of Partnership Firm, which came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 10.03.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein has filed RFA No.1113/2023 before this Court. This Court by the order dated

22.02.2024 had admitted the appeal, granted an interim order, drawing up of final decree is stayed, till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, interim order granted has

been extended until further orders. In the meantime, the respondent herein has filed FDP proceedings in FDP No.79/2023 and also filed I.A.No.1/2024 under Order XXVI Rule 13 seeking appointment of Civil Engineer as Court Commissioner to make division of the suit schedule property, which came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.4223/2018 is itself without jurisdiction. The respondents have no locus standi to file any suit. When decree itself is in nullity and same is challenged before this Court by filing Regular First Appeal. The FDP Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the final decree proceedings.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondents contended that in Regular First Appeal, the Court has granted interim order and drawing

of final decree is stayed. Therefore, the FDP Court has proceeded to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the same and no final decree has been drawn. This is also relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.105631/2023 disposed on 12.03.2024.

¶6Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶7It is not in dispute that the respondents herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.4223/2018 seeking dissolution of partnership firm. It is also not in dispute that the trial Court has decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated

10.03.2023. Thereafter, respondents herein have filed FDP 79/2023. In the meantime, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioners herein have filed RFA No.1113/2023. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 has admitted that appeal, drawing up of final decree is stayed, till next date of hearing.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that subsequently, this Court in RFA has extended that interim order until further orders. What is the interim order granted in RFA is only drawing of Final Decree is stayed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not stayed and FDP proceedings in FDP No.79/2023 is also not stayed. Therefore, the FDP Court can appoint a Commissioner but cannot drop the final decree. Till that stage, FDP proceedings can be continued. Even this Court in similar circumstances, has held in W.P.No.105631/2023 at para No.5 as under: "5. From above, it is not in dispute that interim order granted by this Court in RS No.100357/2019 on 12.06.2019 was staying drawing up of final decree only and therefore Final Decree Court would be justified in proceeding up to that stage.

As such, appointment of Court Commissioner cannot be assailed on ground that second appeal was pending. Hence, objection of counsel for respondents would be justified. Therefore, petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed."

¶9In view of the above, there is no error or illegality in the order passed in FDP No.79/2023 by the FDP Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43