Indu v. Narayan Hirekar - 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 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Smt Indu D/O Moteppa Hirekar vs Sri Narayan Devendra Hirekar on 18 March, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4332
CRP No. 100074 of 2025

                        HC-KAR

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                                 DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                                 BEFORE

                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100074 OF 2025

                        BETWEEN:

                        1.   SMT. INDU
                             D/O. MOTEPPA HIREKAR,
                             AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
                             TQ:HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

                        2.   SMT. HONNAVVA
                             D/O. MOTEPPA HIREKAR,
                             AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
                             TQ:HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

                        3.   SRI. RAMDAS YALLARI MAGWADKAR,
                             AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,

CHANDRASHEKAR
TQ:HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:32
4. SRI. SHRIKANT YALLARI MAGWADKAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
+0000

                             R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
                             TQ:HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

                        5.   SRI. DHARMARAJ YALLARI MAGWADKAR,
                             AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
                             TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

                                                                     ... PETITIONERS
                        (BY SRI S.G. NANDOOR, ADV. FOR
                            SRI A.C. CHAKALABBI, ADV.)
                         -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:4332
                                 CRP No. 100074 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

1. SRI. NARAYAN DEVENDRA HIREKAR,
   AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
   TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 329.

2. SRI. PRAHLAD DEVENDRA HIREKAR,
   AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MODALGERA VILLAGE,
   TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 329.

3. SRI. RUDRAPPA SOMANING BANOSHI,
   AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MANGALWAD,
   TQ: HALIYAL, (U.K) - 581 356.

4. SRI. SUBHAS KEDARI BANOSHI,
   AGE: 66 YEARS,
   OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MANGALWAD,
   TQ: HALIYAL, (U.K) - 581 356.

   SRI. CHANDRAKANT KEDARI BANOSHI,
   (DECEASED BY HIS LRS).

5. SMT. YALLAVVA CHANDRAKANT BANOSHI,
   AGE: 45 YEARS,
   OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MANGALWAD,
   TQ: HALIYAL, (U.K) - 581 356.

6. SMT. SHRUTI VINOD MAKADAM,
   AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
   R/O: CHATANGERA VILLAGE,
   TQ: HALIYARL (U.K.) - 581 329.

7. SRI. RAMA CHANDRAKANT
   KEDARI BANOSHI,
   AGE:25 YEARS,
   OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL,
   (U.K) - 581 356.
   -3-
   NC: 2026:KHC-D:4332
   CRP No. 100074 of 2025

HC-KAR

1. SRI. SHANTARAM KEDARI BANOSHI,
   AGE: 54 YEARS,
   OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL,
   (U.K) - 581 356.
   ... RESPONDENTS

    THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
   

   115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
   THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
   HALIYAL, UTTAR KANNADA IN O.S.NO.28/2019 DATED
   31.08.2024 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND DIRECTED THE
   RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2/PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY THE ORDER
   DATED 17.01.2024 TO SUBMIT THE FRESH VALUATION SLIP
   AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS COURT DEEMS FIT.

    THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS
   

   THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                            ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 31.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge

and JMFC, Haliyal, Uttar Kannada in OS no.28/2019 on

preliminary issue (Additional Issue no.1), this revision petition is

filed.

1. Sri S.G. Nandoor, learned counsel for petitioners

submitted that revision petition was by defendants no.1 to 5 in

suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2 herein seeking for decree of -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4332 CRP No. 100074 of 2025 HC-KAR

declaration of possession over suit schedule properties. It was

submitted, on appearance, petitioners had filed written

statement, and amended same to add a specific plea about

improper valuation of suit reliefs. Trial Court framed additional

issue no.1 and treated it preliminary issue and hold it in favour

of plaintiff. It was submitted, trial Court ought not to have

decided it without recording evidence. Therefore, Tribunal

committed material irregularity and prayed for allowing revision

petition.

1. It was submitted, trial Court had on 17.01.2024

directed plaintiff to file revised valuation slip. Same was not

complied. It was submitted, valuation of suit properties was

more than one crore and due to impugned order, defendant

would not be able to lead evidence on same. Therefore,

impugned order was revisable.

1. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and

other documents appended to revision petition.

1. At outset, since this is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (' CPC ', for short), wherein

petition has to first meet scrutiny whether revision petition -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4332 CRP No. 100074 of 2025 HC-KAR

preliminary scrutiny would be maintainable in view of proviso to Section 115(1) of CPC. In instant case, even if order under

revision if reversed and passed in favour of petitioners, at best a

direction would ensue to plaintiff for payment of deficit Court fee.

Only in case of default of such direction, suit could be dismissed.

Consequently, when impugned even if reversed would not lead to

conclusion of proceedings, revision petition under 115 of CPC would not be maintainable. On ground of maintainability, revision

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE

CLK / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9