Karnataka High Court
Mr Masood Ali vs Sri Dayananda Pai on 22 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7587
WP No. 5681 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5681 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. MASOOD ALI,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
SON OF SRI. MEHAMOOD ALI,
R/AT ALI ESTATES HOUSE NO.1,
VASUDEVAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. DAYANANDA PAI,
S/O DR NARASIMHA PAI,
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
K S RENUKAMBA R/AT NO.25, MUDHUBAN,
Location: HIGH BELLARI ROAD,
COURT OF BYATARAYANAPURA,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-92.
2. SRI. H. YESHWANTH SHENOY,
S/O LATE H.V SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, 2ND CROSS,
NEHRU NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. SRI. SATISH PAI,
S/O DR. NARASIMHA PAI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7587
WP No. 5681 of 2024
R/AT NO.85/1,
SHIVASHAKTHI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. SMT. MOHINI PAI,
W/O DAYANANDA PAI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, MUDHUBAN,
BELLARI ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE-92.
5. SRI. MOHAMOOD ALI,
S/O MAMTAZ ALI,
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LRS,
5A. MR.MAQSOOD ALI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SON OF MAHMOOD ALI.
5B. MR.MASOOM ALI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
SON OF MAHMOOD ALI,
5C. MRS. LATIFUNNISA ALI
ALLIAS GINNY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF MAHMOOD ALI,
5D. MR.MANSOOR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SON OF MAHMOOD ALI,
5E. MR.MANZOOR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SON OF MAHMOOD ALI,
5F. MR. MIZAAN ALI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
SON OF MAQDOOM ALI,
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT:
ALI ESTATES HOUSE NO.1,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7587
WP No. 5681 of 2024
VASUDEVAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKAHOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064.
6. SMT. TAHIRA MOHAMOOD ALI,
W/O MOHAMOOD ALI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEAR,
R/O ALI ESTATES,
KENCHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
ALSO AT NO.1001/1002
ABHISHEK APARTMENTS,
BEHIND ESIC NAGAR,
ANDHERI WEST,
NEW VARSOVA, LINK ROAD,
BOMBAY-400 053.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT QUASHING
THE ORDER DTD 08.01.2024 PASSED IN RESPECT OF IA NO. 9
IN OS NO. 919/2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU FOR THE
RELIEF OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO
DEFENDANT NO. 6 BY WAY OF EMAIL VIDE EMAIL ID -
momsico999 at aol.com AND WHATSAPP NUMBER PLUS 1 (570)
963-7991 IN OS NO.919/2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.919/2013 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.9 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7587 WP No. 5681 of 2024 whereby the application-I.A.No.9 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC seeking permission to serve un- served defendant No.6 by way of E-mail and Whatsapp was rejected by the trial Court.
2. On perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendant No.6 to declaration permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The petitioner/plaintiff could not serve defendant No.6 by the normal course and accordingly, filed an application- I.A.No.9 for permission to serve defendant No.6 via E-mail. The said application having been rejected by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. The material on record discloses that despite several attempts, the petitioner has not been in position to serve defendant No.6 by the normal course. In the application, the petitioner had given the E-mail ID of defendant No.6 as can be seen from the application.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7587 WP No. 5681 of 2024
4. Under these circumstances, the trial Court clearly fell in error in refusing to permit the petitioner to serve defendant No.6 via E-mail which is permissible in law.
In the result the following:
ORDER
a) Writ petition is allowed.
b) Impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S No.919/2013 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru is hereby set-
aside.
c) The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to serve defendant No.6 via E-mail as per the E-mail ID stated in the application.
d) Immediately upon appearance of defendant No.6, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE HKV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5