Karnataka High Court
Sri S Dinakar Rao vs Sri U M Ramesh Rao on 27 June, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.3026/2017, W.P.NOS.4877-
4878/2017 & W.P.NO.4879/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. DINAKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
S/O LATE S.G. SUNDAR RAO
R/AT NO.47, PRABHU STREET/
CHURCH STREET
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADV.)
AND:
SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE U.M. KRISHNA RAO
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND
COFFEE GROWER
I.G. ROAD
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.K.V. CHALAPATHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI V. RAMESH BABU, ADV.)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 14.12.2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
O.S.NO.55/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NOS.1,
2 & 4 AND DISMISS I.A.NO.5.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 14.12.2016 disposing of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed by the plaintiff and allowing I.A.No.5 filed by the defendant for permission to file the written statement.
2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.55/2016 for partition and separate possession and also for mesne profits contending that the plaintiff and defendant are co-owners of the suit schedule properties and they are entitled to share in respect of said suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the 3 relief sought for. Defendant has filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that it is a partnership firm and the plaintiff is not entitled to share as sought for and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.
3. The plaintiff also filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction directing not to alienate suit schedule properties and not to dispose of the coffee produce and I.A.No.4 for not to renew the lapsed lease deed dated 01.07.2013 executed in favour of one Jeevan Sequeira or parting with possession of Watekhan Estate Bungalow in the coffee estate and I.A.No.5 for filing the written statement. I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 are filed reiterating the plaint averments. I.A.No.5 is filed by the defendant seeking permission to file written statement. The Trial Court after considering the applications and the 4 objections by the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 allowed I.A.No.5 and permitted the defendant to file written statement and disposed of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Anandarama K., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court disposing of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 without assigning any reasons is contrary to the material on record. The Trial Court has not at all assigned any reasons nor considered the objections filed. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4. He fairly submitted that I.A.No.5 filed for permitting to file written statement is not pressed.
5
6. Per contra, Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ramesh Babu, fairly submits that since the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons while disposing of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4, matter requires for re-consideration by the Trial Court afresh. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is taken on record.
7. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession contending that the plaintiff and defendant are co- owners of the suit schedule properties and they are entitled to share in respect of the said suit schedule properties. The same is denied by the defendant.
8. It is undisputed fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the 6 defendant not to alienate the suit schedule properties and not to dispose the coffee produce. I.A.No.4 was filed by the plaintiff not to renew the lapsed lease deed dated 01.07.2013 executed in favour of one Jeevan Sequeira or parting with possession of Watekhan Estate Bungalow in the coffee estate. The Trial Court without assigning any reasons, only on the memo filed by the defendant that he has no intention to alienate the suit schedule properties, disposed of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4. The same is vitiated on the ground of non-assigning reasons. It is for the Trial court to consider the applications on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 independently and ought to have assigned reasons before disposing of the said applications. Same has not been done. The impugned order passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly submits that he will not press the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Trial Court 7 allowing I.A.No.5 for permission to file the written statement. Said submission is placed on record.
9. In view of the reasons stated above, W.P.No.3026/2017 and W.P.Nos.4877-4878/2017 are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court dated 14.12.2016 on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 made in O.S.No.55/2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for consideration of I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 afresh after hearing both the parties and pass orders in accordance with law.
The respondent/defendant is also permitted to file objections, if any, to the said I.As. After sufficient opportunity, the Trial Court shall pass orders assigning independent reasons on each I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 in accordance with law.
8
W.P.No.4879/2017 filed against the order dated 14.12.2016 on I.A.No.5 permitting the defendant to file written statement is dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca