Karnataka High Court
Bharat Bhushan Narang vs Ashok Kumar Manchanda on 12 June, 2020
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
WRIT PETITION No.41240/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
--------------
1. Bharat Bhushan Narang,
S/o Late Sri. Om Prakash Narang,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at 9/1, North Park Road,
Kumara Park East,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Vaibhav Narang,
S/o Sri. Bharat Bhushan Narang,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at 9/1, North Park Road,
Kumara Park East,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...PETITIONERS
(BY Sri.Kashyap N. Naik, ADV.)
AND :
-------
1. Ashok Kumar Manchanda
Since dead, represented herein by
his Legal Representatives,
1A. Uma Manchanda,
W/o Late Sri. Ashok Kumar Manchanda,
Aged about 66 years,
2
R/at No.72/1 - 6/1,
Cunningham Road,
Opp. State Bank of Mysore,
Bangalore - 560 001.
1B. Preethi Chowriappa,
W/o Ashok Chowriappa and
D/o Late Sri. Ashok Kumar Manchanda,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at G-2, Silver Oak Apartments,
Kensington Road Cross,
Halsuru,
Bangalore - 560 008.
1C. Priya Manchanda,
W/o Mark McGivern,
D/o Late Sri. Ashok Kumar Manchanda,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.72/1 - 6/1,
Cunningham Road,
Opp. State Bank of Mysore,
Bangalore - 560 001.
1D. Gaurav Manchanda,
S/o Late Sri. Ashok Kumar Manchanda,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.72/1 - 6/1,
Cunningham Road,
Opp. State Bank of Mysore,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sudarshan Kumar Manchanda,
S/o Late Sri. Munshilal Manchanda,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.40, Basappa Road,
Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
3
3. Indu Bala Batra,
D/o Late Sri. Munshilal Manchanda,
Aged Major,
R/at House No.502, 19th Main,
36th Cross, 4th E Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 041.
4. Nikhil Manchanda,
S/o Sri. Sudarshan Manchanda,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.40, Basappa Road,
Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
5. M/s Prakash Roadlines Ltd,
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its registered office at
Prakash House, 65/31, 3rd Cross,
Kalasipalyam New Extension,
Bangalore - 560 002 and
Represented by its Director.
6. M/s S.M. Kannappa Automobiles Pvt Ltd
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its registered office at
No.2, New Mental Hospital Road,
Bangalore - 560 027 and
Represented by its Director.
7. M/s Prakash Leasing Limited
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its registered office at
No.50, I Main Road, Vasanthnagar,
4
Bangalore - 560 052,
Represented by its Director. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.S. Naganand, Senior Advocate for
Sri.S.Sriranga, Adv. For C/R-1(A,B))
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned
order dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure-A) passed by the
Hon'ble XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court,
Bangalore (CCCH-3) in O.S.No.5053/1990 and
consequently, allow the said I.A.No.1/2018 (Annexure-
K) and delete additional issue No.2 framed in
O.S.No.5053/1990 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day through video conferencing, Chief
Justice passed the following;
ORDER
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the original 8th and 9th defendants. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 5th August, 2019 passed by the learned trial Judge by which I.A. No. 1/2018 filed by the petitioners has been rejected. The said I.A. was filed for deleting additional issue No. 2. By the impugned order the 5 prayer for deleting the additional issue No. 2 has been rejected.
2. The suit is of the year 1990. The order impugned is purely an interlocutory order which is capable of being challenged in an appeal which may be preferred by the petitioners in the event the decree eventually passed by the trial Court be adverse to them.
3. This is not a fit case to interfere under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order refusing to delete an issue in a suit of the year 1990. As observed above, in the event the decision in the suit be adverse to the petitioners, while impugning the decree by preferring an appeal, the petitioners can challenge the impugned order. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is not entertained and it is rejected. However, I 6 make it clear that no adjudication is made on the merits of the controversy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE LRS/PGG