Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Soma vs Puttaswamy Gowda @ Motegowda on 3 October, 2018

                          -1-
                                  WP No.34433/2018


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.34433/2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI SOMA
S/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA @
MOTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND MARIGUDI TEMPLE
NAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI
MYSURU - 570 001                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

PUTTASWAMY GOWDA @
MOTEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

1.     SMT. JAYAMMA @
       JAYALAKSHMAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
       W/O NARASEGOWDA
       D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA
       @ MOTEGOWDA

2.     SMT. KAMALAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
       W/O N.D.SHIVARAMU
       D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA
       @ MOTEGOWDA

       R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT
       BEHIND MARIGUDI TEMPLE
       NAGANAHALLI
       KASABA HOBLI
       MYSURU - 570 001
                          -2-
                                   WP No.34433/2018


3.   SMT. VISHALAKSHI
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     W/O THIMMARAJU @ NATHAPPA
     D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA @
     MOTEGOWDA
     R/AT LAKSHMIPURA
     NAGANAHALLI POST
     KASABA HOBLI
     MYSURU TALUK - 570 001

4.   SMT. JAMUNA
     W/O SHIVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA
     @ MOTEGOWDA
     R/AT NO.16, MADYADA GARADI BEEDHI
     KUMBARAKOPPALU, MYSURU - 570 001

5.   SMT. ROHINI
     W/O MADEGOWDA @ HATTI MADEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA
     MOTEGOWDA
     R/AT HOMBARAGALLI
     HAMPAPURA, H.D.KOTE TALUK
     MYSURU - 570 001

6.   SMT. VEDAVATHI
     W/O NINGEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     D/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA @
     MOTEGOWDA
     R/AT PALAHALLI GRAMA
     SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
     BELAGOLA HOBLI, MANDYA - 571 101

7.   SRI P.KRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     S/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA @
     MOTEGOWDA

8.   SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
     S/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA @
     MOTEGOWDA
                             -3-
                                       WP No.34433/2018


     R7 AND R8 ARE R/AT
     NAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI
     MYSORE TALUK - 570 001

9.   HAMSA
     D/O SOMA @ SOMASHEKAR
     AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
     SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
     SMT. H.M.ANITHA
     W/O SOMA @ SOMASHEKAR
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
     R/AT NO.69, 2ND MAIN
     KANDAYANAGAR, 1ST STAGE
     SRIRAMPURA, II STAGE
     MYSURU - 570 001                      ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.06.2018 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MYSURU ON IA NO. XIII IN O.S.NO.822/2011.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

1. This writ petition is by the plaintiff and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application (IA No.XIII) filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.822/2011.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid application was filed after commencement of the trial in the suit. Perused the -4- WP No.34433/2018 reasoning of the trial Court at para 10 of the impugned order.
3. I have examined the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Bhatia v.

Subhash Chander Bhatia [(2018) 2 SCC 87] relating to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is relevant to refer to the following observation made therein:

"12. .............................................................................. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. ......................................................................................................."

4. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to warrant interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR