Sri. Shivaswamy vs Poornima on 9 August, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Shivaswamy vs Poornima on 9 August, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 9?" DAY oz: AU

BEFORE

THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE A.N.1-?vEr»:LrGCi,iéAtA"éoyyoa 

wan PETITIO\i No.1'Q30»'2!Qi0V_AGM§C?.A"C\'. "  

BETWEEN:

Sri Shivaswamy, V '  ;
S/o. fate Channabasvaiah,  r
Aged about 50 years, '- ,
Residing at Kibbanahaii
Tiptur Tafuk,    _
Tumkur Disyit.-.*i'£:t.  ~ '

(By M/vs';t'Sub:bia :8! 
AND:  __  _   .

1. Poornima, - V   
L':/o._ late Shiv'a'bas\'ai ah,

,_"A1ged'atiout 35-y.ears,

_ '"Res'irjing~a_t Hoakere viiiage,

  Han.;iain',a,ker,e Hobii,
 C.EAE'\i,.H:--1iVfi Ta}-11 k,

" . To m ku if 'District.

isalithaaama,
, _W/o.- Late Shivabasavaiah,
' Aged about 60 years,

" ---Residing at Hemavathi Colony,

, Kibbanahaiii Village & Post,
Tiptur Taiuk, Tumkur District.

GUST, 2010"§f--<.:y"',,,

i"Viiia.ge &p*o_st, I «. it E' E

: PETITIO N ER



'the record'. V

3. Sadashivaiah,
S/o. late Channabasavaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Kibbanahaili Viilage & Post,
Tiptur Taluk, Turrikur District.

4. Eshwaraiah @ Eshwarppa,  _
S/o. late Channabasavaiah,  "
Aged about 47 years,
Kibbanahaili Viiiage & Post,
Tiptur Taiuk, Tuirikur District.

(By Sri A.V.Gangadhara.ppa,  &  
Notice to R3 & R4 is di.spens--ed }"vJ,iti'i._)_*._ 

This petition is filed'under,A'rticiesL;2'26 and 227 of
the Constitution_of_India 'pr'ayi.ng~.[to_ caiivfor the records in
FDP 1/09 on ?.the}fiie ofgthe'Princi_pa!"Civil Judge (3r.Dn.) &
JMFC., Tip-cur"~._;"iv-cjuash._V---the_Vportion' of the order dated
24.5.2010 p.as:'.sed buy"th'e.Vi_'P..ri'ncipai Civii Judge (Jr.Dn.) si
JMFC.,,i.----T':ptu'ii. in"1II::,F€3P-..1-;.'09"'i'n»»V-so far as rejecting the
objections _fii'eVi:i_--V i;y¥ithe4V'pe_titio_ner to the main petition, a
certified copy ofwhigich_iis=s.pr'o_duced as Annexure --~ A as the
said order "suffe»rs' from"e_rro'rs which is apparent on face of

 peti'tio~n.V;;ogrriing on for preiiminary hearing in 'B'

.. «. ,_gr4ot--.-p this day, the Court made the foilowing.

QRQER

 Fi-_r's't-respondent instituted 0.8.197/02 on the file 'of

J't.hes_.Pr| {civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Tiptur, against the petitioner *a_n'o' -respondents 2 to 4 for the relief of partition of her

-»-128*" share in the piaint scheduie properties, The said suit /"

3 ':irF2;ESi'>'QvubV3Vii)iEi\iTS it was decreed on 15.07.03, whereunder, the plaintiff was granted 1/8"" share. The plaintiff i.e., the 15' respon_'d.ent herein, filed FDP 1/09 to effect the partition in __t'er'ms_';0:f:'iti3:e'~ preliminary decree. The decree was sent v Tiptur for necessary action. Before the.isTai'd,o:rder4'coeid passed, the petitioner who wa-s__ notified" of finial:

proceedings, did not respond by appearance and hence he was "Petitioner is stated to have filed',.Mis.:3/l.i.(j@ to set aside the decree': passed in 0.8.197/02.," stated to be pending.

* ylrhe'pfggrtitiieriérifihadi1.A.3 in FDP 1/09 under 0 9 R 7 CPC tagger aVsideA'the...u0rder dated 03.03.09 placing him expa'rte__?'anVd to "r'er:e.i.ve the objections. The I.A.3 having 'not--.b,e-e,n~.o'p,p'os_ed in part i.e., with regard to the setting aside' order dated 03.03.09, placing the petitioner herein "'e>.<pVarte, to the said extent, the relief has been "..fggVrain.t'edV"by the Trial Court. The objections filed by the ' petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same are /' belated in view of the records having already been referred to the Tahsiidar, Tiptur for final decree proceedings.{f..l_This writ petition is directed against the said orde-r:--.i.'e.'j,"V~.to---Tti'i~e0 ~ extent of rejecting the objections f_iled_,_as _i7eing'?bel'ate'd, it

3. Heard the iearned coun.se'l--._on sides';

perused the record.

4. decreed on 15.07.03. The'prelimin'arv'iiclecreepassed' therein is being pursued in jthelwlpetitioner was served with he did not appear' exparte on 03.03.2009.

Before I.A.3, the matter having been'referred"'to_V_'the Tahsildar, certain proceedings appear place in the form of measurement and plaint schedule property. Though the petitioner -has been permitted to come on record and J'paVrticipa*te in the FDP, rejection of his objections to the .._"'e_$<tenét of the objections being tenable on and after

-lv.2./14.05.10 cannot be objected to. The objections of the / /o petitioner if tenable for the proceedings which can take place after 24.05.10, to the said extent, the Trial4.Co.;t_rt_V_is bound to look into the same and pass orders. 9 In the said view of the matter,»-.the o_r',<ie'i:

stands modified directing the Triai.Vcd_d'r't objections filed by the petition"a.r_pp0nly t__o'thle.:ei<;te"nt they " it are applicable for fiitiire,----pr.o_c.ee~d_irigs'"*iv.ve.,./i to the proceedings on and after _24.'05f}V1::0 with reference to the proceedi:ng.s andHievieiitjsiﬂirhic-hghave taken place earlier to " 1.:

Ti*heVlVwrit5»:)etit.i4onf:s'ta'_hds duispvosed of accordingly.

sd/-

iunea sac'?

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court