Sri. Srirangacharya v. Loka Shikshana Trust

( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

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

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(26832(OF(2025((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:((

1., SRI.,SRIRANGACHARYA, S/O.,LATE,KAMBADA,NARASIMAIAH,,

ABOUT,63,YEARS,,, R/AT,,NO,37,,BANDE,HOSUR,, KANNUR,POST,,, BANGALORE,,,560077,

,

2., SRI.,SURESH,S,MATTI,, R/AT,VEERAPURA,ONI,,, NEAR,BASAVA,MANTAPA,,,

HUBLI,DHARWAD,DISTRICT, , Digitally signedtiby 3., SRI.,S.V.BASAVARAJAPPA,, SUVARNA0T R/AT,AKSHAYA,COLONY,,, Location: ND 2 ,,CROSS,,VIDYANAGAR,,,HIGH COURT0OF HUBLI,DHARWAD,DISTRICT, KARNATAKA ,

4., SRI.R.M.,KULAKARNI,, C/O,L.S.JOSHI,,, R/AT,NEAR,RAGHAVENDRA,MATT,,, ND2 ,,CROSS,,MALMATTI,,, DHARWAD,,DHARWAD,DISTRICT, ,

5., SRI.N.S.KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O,SURYA,NARAYANA,,, ( ( ( AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,,, R/AT,VASMIKA,NILAYA,,, NDNO,49.,PEENYA,2 ,,STAGE,POST,,, STANDRAHALLI,,1 ,,MAIN,ROAD,,, SANESHWARA,NAGAR,,, THIGALARAPALYA,,, BENGALORE,,560058, ,

6., SRI.R.MADHUSUDHAN,, S.O,LATE,RAMACHANDRA,, R/AT,BANASHANKARI,NILAYA,,, NO.,666/53,,OPP,KISHAN,PAINTS,,, 60,FEET,ROAD,,NITTAWALLI,,, DAVANAGERE,,577004, …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,JAGAN,MOHAN,M,T.,ADVOCATE), AND:( ( , LOKA,SHIKSHANA,TRUST, NO.,2.,RESIDENCY,ROAD,,, , BENGALORE,,560025,, , BY,ITS,TRUSTEES, , , SRI,VENKATESH,U.B,,1., S/O,SRI,VASUDEVA,RAO,, AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS, ,

2., SRI.,ASHOK,HARANAHALLI, S/O,SRI,LATE,HARANAHALLI,RAMASWAMY,, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, ,

3., SRI.,KESHAVA,KRISHNARAO,DESAI, S/O,SRI,KRISHNA,BINDURAO,DESAI,, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, , ( ( (

4., DR.,GURURAJ,KARAJAGI,, S/O,VASANTHA,RAO,KARAJAGI,, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS,, ,

5., SRI.D.R.PATIL, S/O,RANGANAGODW,PATIL,, AGED,ABOUT,77,YEARS,, , TRUSTIES,ARE,REPRESENTED,BY,, THEIR,GENERAL,POWER,OF,, ATTORNEY,HOLDER,AND,SECRETARY.,, , SRI,HARI,CHANNAKESHAVA,, S/O,LATE,CHANNAKESHAVA,REDDY.K,, AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS, C/O,LOKA,SHIKSHANA,TRUST, NO.2,,RESIDENCY,ROAD,,, SHANTHALA,NAGAR,,ASHOK,NAGAR,, BENGALORE,-,560025., KARNATAKA., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,G.,K.,BHAVANA.,ADVOCATE), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO-SETTING, ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 27.07.2025, PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, COURT, OF, PRINCIPAL, CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSIONS, COURT, AT, BANGALORE, IN, CIVIL, MISCELLANUOUS,1113/2024,ON,I.A,NO.,1,FILED,BY,THE, PETITIONERS, UNDER, SECTION, 151, OF, CPC, VIDE, ANNEXURE-F., , 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 prayer: "PRAYER WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray for following relief:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside the impugned order dated 27/07/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Court at Bangalore in Civil Miscellaneous: 1113/2024 on I.A. No.1 filed by the petitioners under section 151 of CPC vide ANNEXURE: F.

ii) Grant such other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case which deem fit by this Hon'ble High Court including cost of this Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the miscellaneous petition is posted for judgment and he has argued on the merits of the matter. He relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rabiya Bi Kassim M. Vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd.1, and he relied on paragraph No. 9 which reads as follows: "9. On consideration, we are of the opinion that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, as held by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) nothing is required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment, and

1 ILR 2004 Kar 2215

therefore the decision in Laxminarayan Enterprises case is not helpful. Admittedly, Clause (4) of Order 18 Rule 2, of CPC has been deleted and therefore the respondent-plaintiff cannot take advantage of Laxmin Arayan's case in the facts of the given case. Even if we assume it for the sake of argument without accepting, in view of the amendment in CPC, as we find, the law relating to procedure in suits and civil proceedings are governed by CPC. The CPC has been amended from time to time. Recently also, in order to cut short the delays at various levels in disposal of civil cases, CPC was amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 with effect from

1.7,2002. In the facts of the given case, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but he has not availed the opportunity at appropriate time and thereafter his evidence was closed. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence and ultimately the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.6.2001. In our view, if the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, such an application is not maintainable as otherwise it will defeat the very object of amendment in speedy disposal of the cases."

¶3Relying on this, it is submitted that once the matter is posted for judgment, the question of passing further orders will not arise.

¶4Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rabiya Bi Kassim M referred supra, as the matter is already posted for judgment, at this stage, the question of passing any orders in

this case would not arise. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI ) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 112