IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.10168 OF 2026 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SHYALAJA A AGED 48 YEARS W/O LATE SRI AJITH KUMAR D.V RESIDING AT NO.31211 NIKOO HOMES - 1, BHARATIYA CITY HEGDENAGAR, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A 19-19, 7^TH CROSS ROAD Location: HIGH COURT OF TMC LAYOUT, 1^ST PHASE KARNATAKA J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 041 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATION DECLARING THAT THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.310/2022 ANNEXURE-A IS VOLD, NON EST AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT AND SHALL NOT OPERATE TO BAR OR PREJUDICE THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS AND CONTENTIONS IN ANY PRESENT OR FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.310/2022, is void, nonest in the eye of law and without any legal effect, and consequently to hold that the said order shall not operate so as to bar or prejudice the petitioner’s rights and contentions in any present or future proceedings arising out of the same cause of action relating to the auction in question.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

3. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that the earlier complaint filed before the Consumer Forum in C.C.No.310/2022 came to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and that the Forum did not adjudicate the dispute on merits. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no consideration of the substantive rights of the parties and that the dismissal was confined to a technical defect.

4. It is further averred that, subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier complaint, the petitioner has instituted a fresh complaint on the very same cause of action, this time impleading all necessary and proper parties. However, the petitioner apprehends that the Consumer Forum, while considering the subsequent complaint, is proceeding on an erroneous premise that the earlier complaint in C.C.No.310/2022 was dismissed on merits and therefore, the second complaint is not maintainable. On that premise, the petitioner seeks a declaration from this Court that the earlier order does not operate as a decision on merits.

5. This Court is of the considered view that the relief sought in the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and cannot be granted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer, in substance, seeks a declaration regarding the nature and effect of an order passed by a competent Consumer Forum, so as to bind or guide the adjudication in a subsequent proceeding. Such a course is impermissible, as it would amount to this Court pre-empting the consideration of an issue which squarely falls within the domain of the adjudicating Forum before whom the subsequent complaint is pending.

6. It is well-settled that the question as to whether an earlier proceeding was dismissed on technical grounds or on merits, and whether the principles of res judicata or estoppel would be attracted, is a mixed question of fact and law which has to be examined by the Forum seized of the subsequent proceedings. When the order passe