Karnataka High Court
Smt Samshad vs Sri Muniraju on 3 April, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.7323 TO 7324 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAMSHAD
W/O. LATE SADEQU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. SMT. GULSHAN
D/O LATE SADIQUE
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SY NO.13,
OF THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
NOW CALLED AS "SADIQUE LAYOUT",
DR. S.R.K. NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE 560077.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SEKHAR B., ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. KUMARI. RAVI KUMARI
D/O MUNIRAJU
2
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. MR. PRASHANTH
S/O. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
5. MR. VENKATAPATHI
S/O MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
6. SRI. MUNIKALA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O MUNIKALA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
8. MASTER GAGAN
S/O MUNIKALA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
9. KUM. VYSHNAVI
D/O MUNIKALA
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS
SL.NO.8 & 9 ARE THE MINORS
REPRESENTEED BY THERI NATURAL MOTHER
& GAURDIAN -SMT. SHANTHAMMA SL.7
10. SMT. LALITHA
D/O. LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
11. SRI. YETHIRAJ
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
12. SMT. AMBUJA
W/O YATHIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3
13. MASTER MADAN
S/O YETHIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS
14. KUM. SANDHYA
D/O YATHIRAJ
AGED BAOIUT 07 YEARS,
SL.13 & 14 ARE THE MINORS
REPD. BY THEIR MOTHER &
NATURAL GAURDIAN, SMT. AMBUJA.
15. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
D/O LATE MADDURAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
16. SMT. RAMAKKA
DAUGHTER-IKN-LAW OF MADDURAMMA,
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
17. SMT. KAVITHA
DAUGHTER-IN LAW OF
SMT. RAMAKKA,
W/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR COLONY, S.R.K. NAGAR POST,
THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R. PURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560077.
18. SRI. ABBAS SHARIFF
S/O ZAFARULLA SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.9, J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
OPP. HOLLY MOTHER ENGLISH SCHOLL,
PUTTENAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560077.
19. SRI. EHSAN SAHRIFF
S/O LATE K. NAZEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
4
20. SRI. SUHAIL KHAN
S/O LATE MOHMED YOUNUS KHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
21. SRI. JAMALUDDIN
S/O IABAL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
DEFENDANTS 19, 20, 21 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.176, DHARMARAJA KOIL STREET
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 051.
22. SRI. MUJIB AHMED
S/O LATE MAQBOOL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.7/5, IST CROSS,
4TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA,
BANGLAORE 560026.
23. SRI. ANSAR KHAN
S/O LATE ABBAS KHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4/3,
IST CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 560026.
24. SRI. IBRAHIM AHMED
S/O LAE ABDUL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AWT NO.41,
RAJUNAGAR IST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
MYSORE 570019.
25. SRI. AMJAD AHMED
S/O LATE AHMED KHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.182,
BANI MANTAPPA, MYSORE 570015.
26. SRI. THOUSIF PASHA.AH.K
S/O H.A. KHALEEL
5
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.41,
CANARA BANK INSTITUTION LAYOUT,
B.K. MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT 562117
... RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:10.1.2017 PASSED
I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.8366/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE [CCH-18] BANGALORE
ANNEXURE-A IN NOT EXTENDING THE INTERIM ORDER
DTD:23.12.2016 PASSED IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE UNTILL
FURTHER ORDERS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Plaintiffs in O.S.No.8366/2016 have filed these writ petitions for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2017 passed on IA No.5, whereunder trial Court has not extended the interim order granted on 23.12.2016.
2. As could be seen from the order dated 10.1.2017 at Annexure-A, the reason which has been assigned by the trial Court for not extending the interim 6 order granted earlier on 23.12.2016 is on account of plaintiffs having not taken steps on the unserved respondent Nos.18, 22, and 23. The order sheet of the trial Court would indicate that on interim order being granted on 23.12.2016, matter came to be adjourned to 10.1.2017. Summons issued to the defendants have been noted and it would indicate that some of the defendants were served and on their behalf, Advocates have entered appearance. Order sheet would also disclose that suit summons issued to defendant Nos.8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 24 & 25 had not been returned. Summons issued to defendant Nos.18, 20, 22 & 23 has been returned unserved with shara "no such person". No fault could be laid on the doors of the plaintiffs for non-service of suit summons on defendant Nos.18, 22 &
24. Plaintiffs have not refused to take steps in respect of the unserved defendants. As such, the trial Court 7 could not have refused to entertain the prayer of the plaintiffs for extension of interim order granted earlier.
3. In the event of these writ petitions being entertained, the proceedings before the trial Court would get delayed. Hence, it would suffice to grant liberty to plaintiffs to file a fresh application for extension of interim order granted on 23.12.2016 before trial Court and on such application being filed, trial Court is directed to dispose of said application on the same day the application is filed after hearing other side if necessary, this would meet the ends of justice.
4. Subject to above observation, these writ petitions stand disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents and no orders adverse to the interest of respondents have been passed. Since it is stated that matter is now listed on 18.04.2017, it is needless to state that the petitioners/plaintiffs are at liberty to seek 8 for advancement or preponement of the suit after serving copies of the application on the learned counsel who had already appeared for the defendants. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SA