Karnataka High Court
P.Suryaprakash vs P.Sreeramulu Guptha on 14 March, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.9648/2017(GM-CPC)
Between:
P.Suryaprakash,
S/o Late P.Subbaratnaiah Shetty,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.1014,
E/A, 3rd Main, 2nd Stage,
RPC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560040.
...Petitioner
(By Smt. Leela Krishnan.D, Advocate)
And:
1. P.Sreeramulu Guptha,
S/o Late P.Subbaratnaiah Shetty,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at No.516-E,
1st C Main Road, II Block,
RPC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560040.
2. P.Kodandarama Shetty,
S/o Late P.Subbaratnaiah Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.515-E,
1st Floor, 1st C Main Road,
2nd Stage, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560040
-2-
... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the Hon'ble Addl. City
Civil Judge, Bengaluru CCH No.2 to expedite hearing of
O.S.No.3127/2011 and dispose of the same at the earliest.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
It is very strange that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to expedite the hearing of O.S.No.3127/2011 and dispose of the same at the earliest .
2. It is contended that there is dispute between the petitioner and first respondent who is the elder brother of the petitioner while the respondent No.2 is the younger brother of the petitioner. Even though the respondents had no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, the petitioner out of humanitarian consideration, permitted the respondents -3- to live in the ground floor and second floor of the schedule properties.
3. A suit O.S.No.8591/1996 came to be filed by the respondent/defendants for permanent injunction against the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the petitioner from forcibly disposing the respondents from the suit schedule property, which was decreed restraining the petitioner permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the respondents are evicted from the suit schedule property. Thereafter, petitioners filed O.S.No.3127/2011 for eviction of respondents from the suit schedule property.
4. In this suit, it is submitted that the petitioner has adduced evidence. However, the respondents are not co-operating with the proceedings. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for a mandamus for early hearing and disposal of the suit by the trial Court. -4- Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2011, the defendants are not co-operating to proceed in the suit as alleged. The plaintiff has not produced any material before the Court like the pressure of the cases before the Trial Court, how many interim applications are filed, evidence matters and how many old matters earlier 2011 are pending etc., are not forthcoming in the present case.
5. In the absence of the particulars stated supra, the Court is decline to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SB/DN