Mr. Shaik Abdul Haseeb vs Sri. R. L. Manjunath on 27 June, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Shaik Abdul Haseeb vs Sri. R. L. Manjunath on 27 June, 2019

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO. 46723 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:

MR. SHAIK ABDUL HASEEB
S/O. SHAIK ABDUL RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.114, "NISHAT MANZIL",
7TH "B" CROSS, AECS LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 094.
                                       ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. R. L. MANJUNATH
   S/O. R. LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY,
   AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
   R/AT NO.100, BRAHMIN STREET,
   NEAR VISHNU LODGE,
   KOLAR TOWN-563 122.

2. KUM. GOWRAMMA
   D/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY,
   AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
   R/AT NO.100, BRAHMIN STREET,
   NEAR VISHNU LODGE,
   KOLAR TOWN-563 122.

3. SRI. M.N. RAMESH
   S/O. NARAYANASETTY,
   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
   RESIDENT OF NUGULA BANDA,
   MULABAGAL TOWN-563 131.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI H K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2L;
    R2 SERVED)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2016 AT
                                 2

ANNEX-G PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT MULBAGAL, ON I.A.VII IN O.S.289/2012 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION I.A.VII FILED BY R-1 & 2 / PLAINTIFF UNDER
ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC AT ANNEX-E TO
W.P. AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS / PLAINTIFFS TO PAY THE
PETITIONER THE COST OF THIS W.P.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 22.07.2016 made by the Court below, whereby the application of the respondent filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been favoured and leave has been accorded for amending the pleadings, with costs. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.

2. The matter was heard for some time in the forenoon. The learned counsel of the petitioner had availed a short Passover to enable him to ascertain the truthfulness of the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner has accepted the cost and therefore, having so accepted he cannot maintain the writ petition.

Now after verification, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the assertion of the 3 respondents is true and that the writ petition be accordingly disposed off.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off without granting indulgence in the matter.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court