Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal B S Parashurama Rao vs Meenakshi P Rao - Civil ...

Routine Enforcement Added Final

B S Parashurama Rao vs Meenakshi P Rao - Civil Procedure Case

India Karnataka High Court

Filed March 16th, 2026

Detected March 24th, 2026

Summary

The Karnataka High Court has issued a judgment in the case of B S Parashurama Rao vs Meenakshi P Rao. The case, bearing writ petition number 24864 of 2024, concerns matters related to civil procedure.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a judgment from the Karnataka High Court in the case of B S Parashurama Rao and another versus Meenakshi P Rao and others. The case, identified by Writ Petition No. 24864 of 2024, was presided over by Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad and was issued on March 16, 2026. The judgment appears to relate to civil procedure, as indicated by the reference to 'CPC'.

As this is a court judgment, the primary implication is for the parties involved in the litigation. Legal professionals representing these parties will need to review the judgment to understand the court's findings and any directives issued. The document does not appear to impose new regulatory obligations on a broader industry or set of entities, thus requiring no immediate action from compliance officers outside of the specific case context.

Source document (simplified)

## 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 4, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

B S Parashurama Rao vs Meenakshi P Rao on 16 March, 2026

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15516
WP No. 24864 of 2024

                  HC-KAR

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 24864 OF 2024 (GM- [CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/))
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    B. S. PARASHURAMA RAO
                        AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
                        S/O LATE BHARMOJI RAO
                        NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
                        SHAMRAO COMPOUND
                        BENGALURU-560 027.

                  2.    DEEPAK P. SULAKHE
                        AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                        S/O B. S. PARASHURAMA RAO
                        RESIDING AT NO.5033
                        BROOKVIEW DR, DALLAS,
                        TEXAS, UNITED STATES-75220.
                                                          ...PETITIONERS
                  (BY SRI. MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY
Location: HIGH 1. MEENAKSHI P. RAO
COURTOF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
KARNATAKA
W/O V. R. SHAMSUNDAR
NO.12/7, 3RD FLOOR
LALBAGH ROAD
SHAMRAO COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 027.

                  2.    SMT. SULOCHANA BAI
                        AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
                        W/O LATE B. S. NARAYANA RAO
                        R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
                       -2-
                                   NC: 2026:KHC:15516
                                 WP No. 24864 of 2024

HC-KAR

 SHAMRAO COMPOUND
 BENGALURU-560 027.

SMT. SATHYA PREMA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
D/O B. S. NARAYANA RAO
R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
SHAMRAO COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 027.
SMT. GAYATHRI PATHANGE
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE B. S. NARAYANA RAO
R/AT NO.T-2, 3RD FLOOR
LOHAN'S REGENT
SUNDARAM MURTHY ROAD
COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.
SMT. PUSHPALATHA GUJJAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O SRI. RAVINDRA GUJJAR
R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
SHAMRAO COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 027.
SMT. YASHODHA BAI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O LATE P. S. DAYANAND
R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
SHAMRAO COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 027.
BHAVANI D. SULAKHE
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O LATE P. S. DAYANAND
R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD
SHAMRAO COMPOUND
BENGALURU-560 027.
M/S K. H. SHAMA RAO AND SONS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15516
WP No. 24864 of 2024

HC-KAR

 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.12
 LALBAGH ROAD
 SHAMRAO COMPOUND
 BENGALURU-560 027
 REPRESENTED BY ITS
 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT.

THE BANGALORE DRESS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.12, LALBAGH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R9 -SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED 21.10.2024)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 04.04.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED
ON I.A.NOs.56 AND 57 BY THE HON'BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-27) AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.
8355/2017 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER ORDER OR WRIT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
```
              ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2
```

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging

the order dated 04.04.2024 passed on IA Nos.56 and 57

                                       NC: 2026:KHC:15516

HC-KAR

filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to recall the order

dated 18.05.2019, permission to file the written

statement, and condonation of delay in filing the written

statement, dismissing the said applications.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.1/plaintiff has contended that the defendants are in

joint possession of the property, and defendant Nos. 1 and

2 are enjoying the income from the firm and company.

Therefore, they just want to drag the matter. He further

contended that in the application for condonation of delay

of five and a half years, no reason has been provided.

Hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the application.

The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.

No.8355/2017 for partition and separate possession. The

suit was filed in the year 2017. After service of summons,

defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement.

The written statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:15516

HC-KAR

was taken as nil on 29.05.2018 and 18.06.2018,

respectively. Thereafter, the issues were framed, and the

parties' evidence was recorded. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2

did not cross-examine the respondent No.1/plaintiff. After

a lapse of 5 years, they have filed this application for

condonation of delay. Even in that application, no reason

has been provided.

In the interest of justice, to give one more

opportunity, I am of the opinion that, by fixing a time limit

and imposing a cost, the application may be allowed.

Accordingly, the following order:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 04.04.2024
passed on IA Nos. 56 and 57 in O.S. No.
8355/2017 by the XII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is quashed, subject
to the condition that the petitioners/defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees

NC: 2026:KHC:15516

HC-KAR

twenty-five lakhs only) to respondent No.
1/plaintiff by the next date of hearing.

(iii) It is made clear that petitioner No.
2/defendant No.2 shall be permitted to examine
any witness and cross-examine the plaintiff on
the date to be fixed by the trial court, without
seeking any adjournment. If he seeks any
adjournment, the order passed by the trial
court on 04.04.2024 will be confirmed.

(iv) The petitioner No.2 shall complete the
cross-examination of PW1 by the end of April
2026.

(v) The parties are directed to appear before
the trial court without any further notice on
26.03.2026.
(vi) The trial court is directed to dispose of the
suit by the end of December 2026.