Karnataka High Court
Sri S M Muniyappa @ Muniyappa vs Smt Papamma on 26 November, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 15531 /2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE» -- DATED THIS THE 26™ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 BEFORE | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.FATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15537/2006 (GM-CPC}- BETWEEN: SRI S.M. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIY APPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KANNURA HALLI ROAD, NEAR OMSHREE PUBEIC SCHOOL, - : BEHIND ASHRAM, V.V.EXTENSICN, HOSKOTE, oe PEFYTIONER (BY SRI newarwanneani REDDY, LADV} AND: i. SMT. PAPAMMA, 0 W/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH, - AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SRI M.S.SHARKAR, _ S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH, . "AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. SRI M. BABU, =. S/O LATE MU Ni SWAMAIAH, * AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. "SRI MUNIVENDRA, "S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. _ ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.10, ~ ND CROSS, 10TH MAIN, - PADMA BUILDING, BEHIND VENUS ARTS, 5.R.NAGAR, BANGALORE ~ 27. WP 15531 /2006 S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE. 6. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUE, oS k.R.PURAM, BANGALORE, RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOUTAM, ADV. FOR R-1, 2 & 4; Oo , SRI R.B. VENKATARAMANA, HCGP BOR RS & 6) THIS PETITION IS PILED UNDER ARTICLES 226-8 297 OF © THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE. ORDERS DT. 2.9.2003 AND DT. 16.9.2003 PASSED IN FDP &O.80/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-7} 'AT BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-Q. ; Mey THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR: PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY. THE' COURT. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
'ORDER
1. Chalienge in this Ww rit petition is to the order dated 92.09.2002 passed by the« court rt helow in F.D.P.No.80/ 2001.
2. By ihe impugned order, 'the court below has appointed the
- Deputy Commissioner : as 'the Court Commissioner to divide the property as: ber the decree dated 18.09.2000 passed in | 0.8.Ne4 193} 1994,
3. _ The grievance of the petitioner is that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner who was the defendant before the court below, the trial Court has proceeded to pass the order : appointing the Court Commissioner to divide the property. It is Kk WP 15531 /2006 seen from the order sheet dated 28.07.2003 that an application was filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9. CPC and the matter was adjourned to 02.09.2003 for objertions to be fled. On 02.09.2003, as the respondents Welt: absent, the - court has passed the order appointing t the Court Comimissionce. | Though this order is passed in the year 2 203, the petitioner h has - not taken any steps to file the writ petition for nearly three years. The writ petition is filed only 9 on OG. Ji. 2006. 4, Although learned el Counsel for the wee contends that the court below hes cormmitied a patent iMegality in passing the order appointing "the Depaty | Commissioner as the Court Commissioner to effet partition and relies upon the judgment of this Court in SANGA REDDY VS BASAMMA AND OTHERS | 2004(5) KAR.LJ. 297, | am not inclined to entertain this writ | 'petition as the writ petition is filed after a lapse of more than three years and as the petitioner has not availed the opportunity to file objections.
7 Seo - It is submitted at the bar by the learned Counsel for the * _ petitioner that he has made an application before the Court
-- _ below requesting the court to recall this order citing the judgment rendered by this Court referred to supra. It is open to Ke WP 15531 /2006 him to pursue the said remedy and to request the court fo pass appropriate orders on the said application, if it is still pending.
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is os dismissed. a - ee jedae KEK