Ekta Kukreja vs M/S Srinivasa Trust - Civil Revision Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Ekta Kukreja vs M/S Srinivasa Trust on 24 March, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

-1-

                                                         R

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
   -2-

   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)

   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: -3-

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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82577596/) 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.

1. 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 -4- miscellaneous petition from CCH-2 to CCH-30, for disposal

in accordance with law.

1. 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.

1. 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 -5- 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 -6- 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.

1. 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 sides, but respondents No.1 and 2

herein did not disclose the fact that they had filed

Miscellaneous Petition No.785/2025 on 17.07.2025,

seeking transfer of the matters to another court. On the

other hand, vague allegations are made against the

Presiding Officer that the Presiding Officer made oral

remarks on 08.04.2025, 09.04.2025 and 11.04.2025

which clearly showed bias on the part of the Presiding

Officer. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

Presiding Officer was only trying to avoid unnecessary

adjournments having regard to the directions issued by

this Court for disposal of the suits within a time frame.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that more than -7- 130 dates of hearing have taken place in the matter and

the order sheets clearly reveal the fact as alleged by the

Presiding Officer before this Court.

1. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sreevatsa,

appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 herein contended

that a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC

is not maintainable in respect of an order passed under Section 24 of the CPC. In that regard, learned Senior

Counsel placed reliance on two decisions of the Kerala

High Court in Wilson Paul Vs. Pathrose - [2008 SCC

OnLine Kerala 310 and V.Gopinath Panicker Vs.

Padmini Kunjamma](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1666497/) in CRP No.329/2010 disposed of

on 25.06.2010 and a decision of the Gujarath High Court

in [Harshad Babubhai Amin vs. Pravinaben

Chandrakant Patel and others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1038800/) - 2003 SCC OnLine

Guj 28.

1. However, learned Senior Counsel Sri

G.L.Vishwanath, has drawn the attention of this Court to a

decision of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court

(Lucknow Bench) in the case of Babusingh and others -8- vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and Others, Transfer

Application (Civil) No.12 of 2021 decided on

10.11.2022, which took into consideration all the

judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for

respondents No.1 and 2. The Division Bench has held,

while agreeing with the interpretation given to Section 115 by the Allahabad High Court earlier in [Jagdish Kumar vs.

The District Judge, Budaun](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/590336/) 1998 ([1) ARC 305 and

Paras Jain .vs. Izhar Ahmad and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197570816/) - 2014 (11)

ADJ 281, that a transfer application is 'other proceedings'

and the order passed thereon is a 'case decided', because

the order passed on the transfer application by the District

Judge disposes it of finally. Therefore, a Civil Revision

Petition is maintainable.

1. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sreevatsa further

submitted that it is respondents No.1 and 2 who filed the

suit earlier in O.S.No.1453/2024 seeking specific

performance of the agreement of sale and the petitioners

herein have purchased the suit schedule property from

respondent No.3, after the suit was filed. It is submitted -9- that the learned Prl. District Judge has rightly considered

the grievance of respondents No.1 and 2 herein, while

directing transfer of the matters to another court.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsels on both the

sides and perused the petition papers.

1. Insofar as the preliminary objection raised by the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1

and 2, regarding maintainability of the Civil Revision

Petition, the position has been made clear by the Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu

Singh (supra). The power conferred on a superior court in Section 115 of the CPC empowers the superior court to

revise an order passed in a case 'decided' in an original

suit or 'other proceedings' by a subordinate court where

no appeal lies against the order. This Court is in respectful

agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court. A transfer application under [Section

24](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36791901/) of CPC, when allowed by the District Court, it amounts

to final disposal of the proceedings. The proceedings

under Section 24 though ancillary to the suit are judicial in

• 10 -

nature, where the court has to consider the grounds for

transfer urged by one party and opposed by the other,

together with the material on record. The decision in that

regard may not have any direct impact on the lis involved

in the suit, appeal or other kind of proceedings, but a

decision is to be judicially arrived at by the District Judge

after due application of mind and hearing parties. The

Division Bench has therefore rightly held that a transfer

application is 'other proceeding' and the order passed

thereon is a 'case decided', because the order passed on

the transfer application by the District Judge disposes it of

finally. No appeal lies on the impugned order passed by

the learned Principal District Judge, therefore, this Civil

Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC is

maintainable.

1. On the facts of the case, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioners is right in his

submission that respondents No.1 and 2 did not disclose

before this Court, when it was considering the request for

extension of time, at the instance of the Presiding Officer,

that they have filed an application under Section 24 of

• 11 -

CPC, seeking transfer of the matters to any other court.

This Court was furious that its earlier direction issued on

30.10.2024 to dispose of the matters within a period of

one year could not be accomplished on account of several

interlocutory applications being filed by respondents No.1

and 2 herein and their non-cooperation in disposing of the

matters within the time frame fixed by this Court.

Accordingly, costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed on

respondents No.1 and 2 herein, while extending the time

by three months and with a specific direction to

respondents No.1 and 2 herein to render assistance to the

trial court in disposing of the suit. In this background, no

fault can be found with the Presiding Officer in insisting

the parties to go on with the matter and not granting

adjournments. Such an action on the part of the Presiding

Officer cannot be painted red, alleging bias.

1. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the matters could not be

transferred to another court. The Presiding Officer who

took charge on 29.05.2024 is fully conversant with the

• 12 -

facts of the case and at this juncture, if the matters are

transferred to another court, the other Presiding Officer

will need additional time to understand the facts and

conclude the proceedings within the time frame fixed by

this Court. Therefore, the matters could not have been

transferred to another court.

1. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2026 passed

by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru in Misc.No.785/2025, is hereby quashed and set

aside. The learned trial judge is hereby directed to

proceed to conclude the proceedings in

O.S.No.1453/2024; O.S.No.2897/2024 and Misc.

No.576/2024, within a period of three months from the

next date of hearing, as directed in MFA No.6603/2024 in

the order dated 28.11.2025.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE

KLY
CT: JL