Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shankrappa Veerappa Tigadi vs Sri.Veerupaxi Siddappa Wali @ Neginhal on 24 July, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.80502/2013
C/W 80503/2013 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P.NO.80502/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANKRAPPA VEERAPPA TIGADI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O. PLOT NO. 112, CTS NO. 5772,
SECTOR NO. 6/1, SHRINAGAR,
BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.VEERUPAXI SIDDAPPA WALI
@ NEGINAHAL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. H.NO. 215, MALLIKARJUN GALLI,
KAMABARGI, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM
2. SHIVANANDA SIDDAPPA WALI
@ NEGINAHAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
H .NO. 5, SECTOR NO. 759,
SHRINAGAR, BELGAUM
3. SMT.NIRMALA W/O. MALLAPPA SHIRAGUPPI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: RATION SHOP
R/O. H .NO. 1, RENUKA NAGAR,
:2:
KANABAGARI ROAD, VANTAMORI CROSS,
TQ & DIST: BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS
----------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:22/06/2013 ON I.A.NO.6 IN
O.S.NO.105/2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., BELGAUM (DIST:BELGAUM), VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.80503/2013
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMACHANDRA FAKKIRAPPA
YANAGANNAVAR,
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O PLOT NO.8, RENUKA NAGAR,
VANTAMURI CROSS, KANABARGI ROAD,
BELGAUM, DIST:BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADV.)
AND:
MALLAPPA SIDDAPPA WALI
@ NEGINAHAL
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S SON
1. SRI AJIT MALLAPPA WALI NEGINAHAL
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O JYOTIRLING GALLI, KANABARGI,
BELGAUM, DIST:BELGAUM.
2. SRI.VEERUPAXI SIDDAPPA WALI
@ NEGINAHAL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. H.NO. 215, MALLIKARJUN GALLI,
KAMABARGI, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM
3. SHIVANANDA SIDDAPPA WALI
:3:
@ NEGINAHAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
H .NO. 5, SECTOR NO. 759,
SHRINAGAR, BELGAUM
4. SMT.NIRMALA W/O. MALLAPPA SHIRAGUPPI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: RATION SHOP
R/O. H .NO. 1, RENUKA NAGAR,
KANABAGARI ROAD, VANTAMORI CROSS,
TQ & DIST: BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS
----------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:22/06/2013 ON I.A.NO.6 IN
O.S.NO.106/2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., BELGAUM (DIST:BELGAUM), VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Plaintiffs in O.S.No.105/2012 and 106/2012 are before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 22.06.2013 Annexure-G whereunder interlocutory application IA-6 filed by them invoking Section 151 CPC for a direction to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to produce the settlement deed dated 19.05.2009 said to have been entered into between father of 1st defendant and defendant Nos.2 and 3 has been rejected.
:4:
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that during the pendency of proceedings before trial court, both the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 have filed an interlocutory application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, each calling upon the other to produce the said settlement deed dated 19.05.2009 alleging that it is in their custody. The trial court is of the view that said rival contentions raised by the parties alleging that it is not in their custody but it is in the custody of the opposite party has to be determined after trial and it has to be found out as to who is in possession of the said document and as such it has kept in abeyance IA Nos.4 and 5 till conclusion of trial. In the meanwhile, plaintiffs have filed interlocutory application IA-No.6 under Section 151 CPC as noticed hereinabove seeking for the very same relief and trial court has rightly dismissed the said application on the ground that plaintiffs themselves have already filed IA-5 for the very same relief and it has kept in abeyance for want of :5: conclusion of trial and entertaining the prayer for same relief does not arise. Said order of the trial court cannot be found fault with and there is no infirmity either in law or on facts calling for interference at the hands of this court. Hence, writ petition lacks merit and they are hereby dismissed.
Dismissal of these writ petitions would not come in the way of plaintiffs' pursuing their grievance before trial court in the pending applications.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE Jm/-