Karnataka High Court
Sri Vengappa vs Sri V Narayanappa on 30 August, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
W.P.No.6511/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.6511/2010 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENGAPPA
S/O VENKATARAMANA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs
1. SMT. BUCHAMMA
AGED 70 YEARS CAUSE TITLE
W/O LATE VENGAPPA
AMENDED
2. SMT .VANAJAKSHI
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O MURUGAN VIDE
RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL
KUPPAM TALUK, ANDRA PRADESH ORDER
DTD.
3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED 42 YEARS 03/01/2012
W/O RADHAKRISHNA
KARVI REDDY HALLI
TAILURU HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
4. M.V.ANJANEYA NAIDU
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE VENGAPPA
5. SMT. JAMUNA, W/O MOHAN
AGED 38 YEARS
6. SMT. PRABHAVATHAMMA
W/O BHUPATHI NAIDU, AGED 35 YEARS
7. M.V.KUMAR, S/O LATE VENGAPPA
AGED 30 YEARS
-2-
W.P.No.6511/2010
LRs 1 & 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT MOTHAKAHALLI VILLAGE
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJAKUMAR.M FOR
SRI C.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI V. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O VENKATARAMANA
R/AT MOTHAKAPALLI VILLAGE
KADRIPURA POST
KYASAMBAHALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
2. SMT. MANGAMMA
DEAD BY LRs
2(a) SMT. AMARAMMA
W/O V.NARAYANAPPA
D/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2(b) SRI RAMAKRISHNA
S/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
AGED 38 YEARS
2(c) SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
AGED 36 YEARS
2(d) SRI RAMESH
S/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
AGED 34 YEARS
2(e) SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O V. NARAYANAPPA
D/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
2(f) SRI SUBRAMANI
S/O CHINNASWAMY NAIDU & MANGAMMA
AGED 30 YEARS
-3-
W.P.No.6511/2010
RESPONDENT LRs NO.2(a) & 2(e)
R/AT MOTHAKAPALLI VILLAGE
KADRIPURA POST
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
RESPONDENT LRs 2(b) TO 2(d) AND (f) ARE
RESIDING AT KOTHAKOTA
V.KOTA MANDAL, S. BANDEPALLI POST
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SMT. RAMAKKA
W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
DOOLAPALLI VILLAGE
THAYALUR POST & HOBLI
MULBAGAL TALUK
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O RAGHAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT DHALAVAYAHOSAHALLI
KADRIPURA POST
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
5. SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT ACHTANAHALLI
NARASAPURA POST & HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
6. SMT. CHINNAKKA
W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT MOTHAKAPALLI
KADRIPURA POST
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
7. SMT. TULASAMMA
W/O SHANKARAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs
-4-
W.P.No.6511/2010
7(a) SHANKARAPPA
S/O V. NARAYANAPPA CAUSE
AGED 60 YEARS
TITLE
7(b) SRI MANI
S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA & TULASAMMA AMENDED
AGED 32 YEARS
VIDE
7(c) SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA & TULASAMMA ORDER
AGED 30 YEARS
DTD.
RESPONDENT NO.7(a) TO 7(c) ARE
RESIDING AT RAMASAGAR VILLAGE 03/01/12
RAMASAGAR POST, KYSAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
7(d) SMT. KANAKAMMA
W/O MANJU
D/O SRI SHANKARAPPA & TULASAMMA
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT KULURU VILLAGE
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
BANGARPET TALUK
8. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT SEEGEHALLI
H.R.PURA POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KARTHIK BABU R, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI J.G.CHANDRAMOHAN FOR R-1, 2 (a,b,c,e,f)
3-6, 7(a-d) & 8
WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT K.G.F. IN
O.S.NO.261/2008 FOR CLUBBING THE O.S.NO.243/08 DATED
26.11.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
-5-
W.P.No.6511/2010
WP COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
This writ petition is by the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant in the suit in O.S.No.261/2008 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure-G) passed by the trial court allowing the application-I.A.VII filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
"I.A.NO.VII filed by the plaintiff-applicant U/s. 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The O.S. 243/08 is clubbed with the present suit. The evidence shall be recorded in O.S. 261/08 as it is a comprehensive suit."
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. On the facts of the case, the clubbing of the two suits referred to above, has in no way, prejudiced the interest of the petitioners. This is not a fit case to warrant interference under the -6- W.P.No.6511/2010 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.