Karnataka High Court
Smt Padma vs Smt Gangamma on 16 January, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NOS.32270-272 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMA
D/O. LATE PATEL NARAYANAGOWDA
W/O. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT DANDIGANAHALLI
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
NOW RESIDING AT BEGOON VILLAGE
BANGALORE DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O. LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. RAMALINGEGOWDA D.
S/O. LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SMT. CHANDRALEKHA,
D/O. LATE PATEL NARAYANA GOWDA
W/O. S.A. GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
2
DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK. 561 211.
4. SRI. D.P. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O. LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
PWD CONTRACTOR, LAKSHMIPURAM
EXTENSION, MANCHENAHALLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK.561 211.
5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
6. SRI. RAJANNA,
S/O. DYAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
DEFENDANT NO.5 AND 6
ARE RESIDING AT SHETTIGERE
VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562 157.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
7. SRI. S. NAGANANDA,
S/O. C. SHESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
8. SRI. S. VISHWANATH,
S/O. C. SHESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
DEFENDANT NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING
AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 211.
9. SRI. S.P. GANGADHARAIAH,
S/O. LATE PUTTEERAIAH
3
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O. BENGALURU VENKATAREDDY ESTATE,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK - 563 125.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R5;
R1, R3, R4, R6, R7 & R8 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR IN
O.S.NO.175/2013 DATED 13.7.2018 ON I.A.NO.11,. 12 AND
13 VIDE ANN.L. ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. P.Mahesha, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. G.S.Bhat, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 5.
In view of the endorsement made in the postal track consignment sheet, the respondent No.9 is deemed to have been served.
4
2. Petitions are admitted for hearing.
3. With the consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
4. In these petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the trial Court, by which, the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 12 and under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 had been dismissed and the application under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been partly allowed.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is bereft of reasons.
5
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any reasons worthy have been assigned by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The requirement of assignment of reasons in support of the order is an essential part of principles of natural justice. Even a quasi judicial authority is required to assign reasons in support of its order. In the instant case, the trial Court without assigning any reasons, by the impugned order, has rejected two applications and has partly allowed one application.
9. The aforesaid manner of passing orders cannot in any way be appreciated. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is 6 accordingly, quashed and the trial Court is directed to decide the applications preferred by the petitioners afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing, by assigning reasons, expeditiously.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp