Muniraju J. vs Ashok S/O Pounnu Jadhav on 17 November, 2015

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Muniraju J. vs Ashok S/O Pounnu Jadhav on 17 November, 2015

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                             -1-



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION Nos.100227 & 100238/2013 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

Muniraju J
Aged about: 53 years,
Occ: Business,
Prop. Of Janatha Travel Agencies,
R/o No.1/2, "Srinivasa Nilaya",
Cox Town, Gover Road,
Bangalore - 560 005.
                                               .... Petitioner

(By Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Ashok S/o Punnu Jadhav
       Aged about: 31 years,
       Occ: Grapes Contractor,
       R/o Hubanur Tanda,
       Dist: Bijapur - 586 101.

2.     The Manager
       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
       No.401/2, F-1, Swatik Manandi Arcade,
       S.C. Road, Opp: Seshadripuram Police Station,
       Bangalore - 560 020.

3.     Basavaraj S/o Mallikarjun Sudi
       Aged about: 39 years,
       Occ: Business,
       R/o Behind Gachina Mahal,
                               -2-



      J.M. Road, Bijapur - 586 101.

4.    The Manager
      National Insurance Co Ltd.,
      1st Floor, Melligeri Complex,
      Kaladagi Road, Bagalkot - 587 101.
                                               .... Respondents

(By Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for
 Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R4,
 R1 & R3 are served,
 Sri Veeresh B. Patil, Advocate for R2 - Advocate expired)

      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or
order, writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ or
order quashing the impugned order dated 6.12.12 passed by
the II Addl. Dist. Judge in Civil Misc.No.12/11 and the
judgment and award dated 28.06.10 passed by the MACT
No.3, Bijapur in MVC No.857/06, in respect of fixing liability
upon the petitioner vide Annexure-B and A respectively.

       These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

The petitioner is assailing the order passed in Civil Misc.No.12/2011 whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected and the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC seeking that the judgment and award passed in MVC No.857/2006 be set aside.

-3-

2. By the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition the judgment and award in the claim proceedings would stand affirmed. Further since the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is rejected, in any event the writ petition would not be maintainable. The remedy available to the petitioner is to file a miscellaneous first appeal.

3. In that view, the petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to convert the petition into miscellaneous first appeal.

4. Registry to permit the learned counsel to convert this petition into appeal and list accordingly. While listing the appeal, the registry to put up a note that the learned counsel who originally appeared for respondent No.2 is no more so as to enable the Court to pass appropriate orders therein.

Sd/-

JUDGE swk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court