Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 193 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1. EKTA KUKREJA

D/O LATE NANDAKUMAR BASHOMAL

AGED 48 YEARS

R/A FLAT NO. 21B,

KINGFISHER TOWERS,

KASTURBA ROAD,

BANGALORE 560001

PETITIONER NO.1 IS REP BY HIS

SPA HOLDER DT.3/12/2025 I.E.,

MR. AVNASH AMARLAL

2. ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

BEING A COMPANY REGD. UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS

REGD. OFFICE AT NO.100/1,

CITY CENTRE, OPP. TOWN HALL,

J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH., SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. SOURABH R. K., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER

THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1881

HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT 7/21,

1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,

BENGALURU 560 080

REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE

D.A. SRINIVAS

2. KALPAJADALAVOI

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

TRUSTEE OF M/S SRINIVASA TRUST,

R/A NO. 87, SAI KESHAV,

OPPOSITE SAI GARDENS, SEEGAHALLI,

BENGALURU 560 067.

3. D.A. THEJESHWARI

AGED 57 YEARS

W/O K.M. SRINIVASA MURTHY

TRUSTEE OF M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

R/A NO. 5/25, 10TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS

JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK,

BENGALURU- 56066.

4. SUB-REGISTRAR

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR

SHIVAJINAGAR, REGISTRATION DISTRICT

4TH FLOOR, NO.122/2,

MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD,

BANGALORE 560001

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SREEVATSA., SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2

SRI. V.SESHU., HCGP FOR R4

SRI. KARTIK FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATES

FOR R3)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.L.Vishwanath, Sourabh R. K.
For the Respondents: Sreevatsa, Rohan Hosmath, V.Seshu, Kartik, Vandana P.L.

A transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitutes a 'case decided', rendering an order therein subject to revision under Section 115 of the CPC, provided no appeal lies against such an order.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 and Section 24 - Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC as it constitutes a 'case decided' - Transfer of suits on grounds of bias - Requirement of showing consistent bias rather than frustration with repeated adjournments. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order transferring their ongoing civil suits from one court to another, which was sought by the respondents based on allegations of bias against the presiding officer. The respondents had frequently sought adjournments, delaying the disposal of suits despite earlier High Court directions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents failed to disclose the pendency of their transfer application while simultaneously seeking time extensions from the High Court. Bias could not be inferred from the presiding officer's efforts to ensure timely disposal of cases as per judicial mandates.

Issues: (i) Whether a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against an order under Section 24 of the CPC; (ii) Whether the order transferring the suits on grounds of alleged bias was legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed on a transfer application under Section 24 of the CPC amounts to a 'case decided', making it subject to revision under Section 115 of the CPC. Transfers cannot be granted simply on allegations of bias when the conduct of the party seeking transfer suggests an attempt to thwart judicial timelines.

Result: Petition allowed; transfer order quashed.

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.02.2026 PASSED IN MISC NO.785/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Misc. Case No.785/2025.

2. O.S.No.1453/2024 was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 13.03.2023 and other reliefs. O.S.No.2897/2024 was filed by petitioner No.1 herein for relief of permanent injunction. The Misc. Case was also filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein seeking transfer of the two suits along with Misc. Case No.576/2024 from CCH-2 to any other court. The Misc. Case No.576/2024 was also filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein before the trial court alleging disobedience of the injunction order. The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, allowing the petition filed under Section 24 of CPC while transferring the two suits and the miscellaneous petition from CCH-2 to CCH-30, for disposal in accordance with law.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.L.Vishwanath, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property from respondents No.3 herein under registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024. However, since respondents No.1 and 2 sought to interfere with the suit schedule property, petitioner No.1 herein filed O.S.No.2897/2024 for permanent injunction and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim order on 23.04.2024. The trial court, thereafter confirmed the interim order and aggrieved by the same respondent No.1 herein filed MFA No.6603/2024 before this Court. This Court allowed the MFA in part and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit and further directed the trial court to dispose of both the suits within a period of one year.

4. The learned Senior Counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-E, a subsequent order passed by this Court in MFA No.6603/2024, submits that having regard to the conduct of respondents No.1 and 2 herein and the fact that the trial court was not able to dispose of the suits within a period of one year, the Presiding Officer sought extension of time and this Court, in its order dated 28.11.2025 has taken note of the information provided by the Presiding Officer that respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed an application for amendment and several adjournments were taken. However, even after the said application for amendment was disposed of, respondents No.1 and 2 filed one more application for recasting of issues and the said application was also allowed. However, this Court stayed all further proceedings in a writ petition filed by respondent No.3 herein. After the disposal of the writ petition, a review petition was filed and once again this Court directed the trial court to defer the proceedings. Ultimately when the matter was set down for evidence, respondents No.1 and 2 again sought for adjournments. This Court took note of the statements made by the presiding officer, and called for production of the order sheets and on verification of the order sheets, this Court found that there was truth in the statements made by the presiding officer. Accordingly, while extending the time for disposal of the suits, this Court imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- against respondents No.1 and 2 herein.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this Court should take note of the fact that the orders for extension of time was passed on 28.11.2025 while hearing the parties on both the sid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document