Vinay Krishna vs Deepak Sridhar

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jun 30, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1728608

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1728608
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: M.Nagaprasanna
Decided On: Jun 30, 2025
Case Number: WP/18369/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinay Krishna

Respondent

Deepak Sridhar

Excerpt

.....learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.2. the petitioner is before this court, seeking the following prayer: "a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial under order 7 rule 11 filed in o.s.no.25219/2025 (annexure-a); and/orb) issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial expeditiously and dispose of the same within a time frame that would be stipulated by this hon'ble court; and/or. c) grant such other consequential reliefs as this hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."3. the petitioner is defendant no.3 in a suit forpartition instituted by the plaintiff-respondent no.1. the issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. the petitioner files an application under order vii rule 11 of cpc, seeking rejection of the plaint. the matter is heard and the -4- matter is said to have been reserved for its judgment on 05.04.2025. the prayer is sought in the wake of the concerned court not pronouncing its order despite the matter being reserved on 05.04.2025.4. in the light of the fact that the prayer is innocuousand the factum of the court reserving the matter on 05.04.2025 has yet to pronounce it, despite passage of three months, i deem it appropriate to direct the concerned court to dispose the application filed under order vii rule 11 of cpc strictly in consonance with law, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier and if not already pronounced. with the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. ordered accordingly. sd/- (m.nagaprasanna) judge rv list no.: 2 sl no.: 28 ct: bhk

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18369 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VINAY KRISHNA, S/O LATE H.V. NANDAKUMAR, …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SAKSHI M. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEEPAK SRIDHAR,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed S/O SRI. G.V. SRIDHAR, by NAGAVENI Location: High R/AT AISRI, NO. 110, KRS ROAD, Court of YELAWALA, MYSURU - 571 130, Karnataka REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. VIVEK C HEGDE.

2. KRISHNA SKRIDHAR, S/O SRI G.V. SRIDHAR, 6TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. -2-

3. DISHA S. KUMAR, W/O VINAY KRISHNA HV,

4. NAGA CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ARJUN SELVAKUMAR, S/O SELVAKUMAR,

GURU SHARAN SELVAKUMAR, S/O SRI SELVAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, NAGA CONSTRUCTIONS BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 242/3,1, 8TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, SADHASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080.

5. GURU KALPANA SUNDARI, W/O G.V. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 FILED IN OS NO. 25219/2025 (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC., -3- THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Smt. Sakshi M. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Trial under Order 7 Rule 11 filed in O.S.No.25219/2025 (Annexure-A); and/or

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Trial expeditiously and dispose of the same within a time frame that would be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; and/or. c) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The petitioner is defendant No.3 in a suit for

partition instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The matter is heard and the -4- matter is said to have been reserved for its judgment on 05.04.2025. The prayer is sought in the wake of the concerned Court not pronouncing its order despite the matter being reserved on 05.04.2025.

4. In the light of the fact that the prayer is innocuous

and the factum of the Court reserving the matter on 05.04.2025 has yet to pronounce it, despite passage of three months, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC strictly in consonance with law, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier and if not already pronounced. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Vinay Krishna vs Deepak Sridhar Same Judge M.Nagaprasanna