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 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M M Ramaswamy S/O Late Muniyappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 June, 2013

Author: K.Bhakthavatsala

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

                              1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE 2013

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

         WRIT PETITION NO.38057 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI M M RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED 89 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT COLLEGE ROAD,
M V EXTENSION
HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT                  ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S NARENDRA, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISON
   BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE TAHSILDAR
   HOSKOTE TALUK
   HOSKOTE
   BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114

3. SRI M VENKATESH
   AGED 56 YEARS
   S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
   R/AT BYALAHALLI VILLAGE,
   ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
   HOSKOTE TALUK - 572 114

4. SRI ANJANAPPA
   AGED 60 YEARS
   S/O LATE DODDAPPA
   R/AO RAMASWAMYPALYA
   NAGANAYAKANAHALLI KOTE DAKHALE
                                2

   SAMETHANAHALLI POST,
   HOSKOTE TALUK
   BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114

5. SRI N B RAMAIAH
   SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

   5(a) SMT GOWRAMMA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        W/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(b) SRI THIMME GOWDA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        S/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(c) SRI N R GOPAL
        MAJOR BY AGE
        S/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(d) SRI KRISHNAPPA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        S/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(e) SRI VENKATARAMA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        S/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(f) SRI NARAYANASWAMY
        MAJOR BY AGE
        S/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(g) AKKAMMA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        D/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(h) SAROJAMMA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        D/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(i) SUBBAMMA
        MAJOR BY AGE
        D/O LATE N B RAMAIAH

   5(j) RAMADEVI
        MAJOR BY AGE
        D/O LATE N B RAMAIAH
                               3

       R5(A) TO R5(J) ARE
       R/O NAGANAYAKANAHALLI KOTE
       SAMETHANAHALLI POST
       HOSKOTE TALUK
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114

6. SRI S ASHOK KUMAR
   MAJOR BY AGE
   S/O LATE SRINIVASAPPA
   R/O RAMASWAMYPALYA
   ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
   SAMETHANAHALLI POST,
   HOSKOTE TALUK
   BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114

7. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY ITS SECRETARY
   REVENUE DEPARTMENT
   M S BUILDINGS
   DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
   BANGALORE 560 001                        ...RESPONDENTS

(SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R3
 SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R4
 SRI.K.VARADARAJAN, ADV. FOR R5(B-E)
 R7 - SERVED)
                              ---

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the order dt.11.9.12, passed by the
Court of the Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural Dist.,
Bangalore as per Ann-J in OS.No.256/1995 in dismissing the
suit for non prosecution and etc.

    This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following

                          ORDER

Writ petition is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application in IA Nos.1/13, 2/13 and 3/13 filed by the 4 petitioner to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.5(f) and respondent Nos.5(a) to (e), 5(g) to 5(j) and 6 are not yet served.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that on 11.9.2012 suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the application filed by the counsel for the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC to re-call the order dated 11.9.2012 was also rejected on the ground that it was not supported with an affidavit of the petitioner and the petitioner has remedy elsewhere.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take appropriate course of action.

4. In view of the above, petition is rejected as not maintainable with liberty to take such course of remedy available in law.

5. In view of the dismissal of the petition, IA Nos.1/13, 2/13 and 3/13 do not survive. Registry is directed to return 5 the necessary papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE RV