Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14172

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J
UMESH S/O SUBHAS SOODI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. BASAMMA W/O SUBHAS SUDI – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 101780 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. BIDARI J.I.
For the Respondents: None

Writ petitions must exhaust appellate remedies before approaching higher courts; procedural adherence is critical.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of certiorari - Challenge to order of Additional Civil Judge on interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Maintainability questioned by Registry - Petition disposed of, liberty granted to challenge order in accordance with law. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Procedure - Writ petition should only be entertained after the exhaustion of the available appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, unless compelling reasons are presented to warrant otherwise. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) regarding interim applications in a civil suit without exhausting the appeal remedy as provided under the CPC.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and upheld the objection raised by the Registry.

Issues: The primary issue was the maintainability of the petition without exhausting the proper appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintainability objections must be sustained if the required appellate remedies are not exhausted, emphasizing procedural adherence in civil matters.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty to pursue appeal.

Table of Content
1. representation issues and petition introduction. (Para 1 , 4)
2. challenge to the order based on procedural rectitude. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's observation on maintainability and procedural adherence. (Para 5 , 6)

ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

1. There is no representation for the petitioner when the matter is called at 02:57 pm.

2. The present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunugund in O.S. No.386/2021 on I.As.1 and 2 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The Registry of this Court has raised objection with regard to maintainability of this petition.

4. The order that is questioned is, admittedly, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunugund, on applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Without exhausting the appeal remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge.

5. Under the circumstances, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained.

6. This petition is not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, it is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunugund, in accordance with law.

Time spent herein shall be condoned on such appeal if filed. Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14172

KARNATAKA HIGH COURTPRADEEP SINGH YERUR, JUMESH S/O SUBHAS SOODI – AppellantVersusSMT. BASAMMA W/O SUBHAS SUDI – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 101780 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

Writ petitions must exhaust appellate remedies before approaching higher courts; procedural adherence is critical.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J
UMESH S/O SUBHAS SOODI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. BASAMMA W/O SUBHAS SUDI – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 101780 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)