Sri T Venkatesh vs Smt Nagamma on 19 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Sri T Venkatesh vs Smt Nagamma on 19 November, 2010

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENOOOPALA._ﬁ5Oyv}r'qA'OAT 

DATED THIS THE 19"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

WRIT PETITION NO.24156/2610 (c_?.'g/%.%.%.¢T2:i(:) A " O'

BETWEEN:

1

SR1 T VENKATES!-I _
S/O LATE PATTADA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. ' '

SMT M SHOBHA V. 
W/O T VENKATESH   _
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.' '

BOTH 'AREﬁ__R;_AT NO_7'4.,:;_A, "   E
'C_HAM_UNF)ESWA_Ri~.{\EIvLAYA'~,..,V.._ 
C,HIK:<A*E;A:\zAvARA,4  .
H'EssARGHATTA'TaO'AO;'- 1. ' '
BANGALORE-S'6__L}._09Q&[" 

 - * V »--  ...PETITIONERS

(BY V531"E;.M.NARAa(ANAswAMY, ADV.)

,j.--_

j MO':

Sf»1vT"~«NOAG.AvM"MA

"Aw/O NERANGAPPA

A  AC,%ED.A.~BOUT 71 YEARS,

i\EO.628, NETHAJINAGAR,
CHOK KASAN DRA,

" '*~._T.DASARAHALLI POST,

'M. -' O ;

. _}aANGALORE--S6o 057.

SR1 T R NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE RANGAIAH



AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MAANE HANUMANTHA RAO
COMPOUND NETHAJI NAG/ARA,
CHOKKASANDRA,
TDASARAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-S60 O57.

SRI FRANCIS   T-
S/O LATE AMRUTHARAJ I

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

SENIOR EXECUTIVE, , _  
DYNAMETIC TECHNOi_OGIES"~L,TD., 
3.3.HOuSE, 4TH 'A' cROSS,"'=._  .
NETHAJI NAGARA, CHOKKASARORA,
T.DASAR/-XHALLI POST, . V "  ' 
BANGALORE--560057_..," __ I

SRI 2<.GOPAp.._  '
S/O RANSASWAMY; ,  _  
AGED ABOU'T§}64 \{EAR:3,'  " 

NO.71,5']i;;   
N ETHA31 I~:_A'c,3AR,"T. OASA RAHAL';_1 POST,
BA.N.GAL"O,RE-"3;5Q  ~ 

S/O. HANUMANT'r!.ARA_Y'A.P.PA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

HOUSE"-NO.1, ANJANAORI NILAYA

;3Rs::"E" CROSS ROAD,
,_[ "«:TH:MM,_APPA 'COSONUT GARDEN,
_  NETjr!AJi,_NAGARA, T DASARAHALLI POST,
 ..,SA,_:$R3AL,.O'R.E-560057.

 *-TSRVI.' OKRAOMVSSH
 S/O +<_  KRISHNAPPA
' AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

HOLJSE NO. 724, 4TH "A" CROSS

O T  NETHAJINAGAR, CHOKKASANORA
'_T.DASARAHAi_i_1 POST
"BANGALORE-560057.

SRI. ESHWARAIAH
S/O LATE HOTTAPPA



10

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
HOUSE NO. 720, 4"' CROSS
NETHAJINAGAR, CHOKKASANDRA
TDASARAHALL1 POST
BANSALORBSSO 057.

SRI. T RAMESH

S/O THIMMAIAH SHETTY   >-
AGED ABOUT 3O YEARS V
HOUSE NO. 723, 4TH CROSS , __
NETHAJINAGAR, CHOKKASANDRA-«A 
TDASARAHALLI POST ' " 
BANGALORE-560057.

SR1. RSRIDHAR V 
S/O RAMACHANDRAPFA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS' . ,

HOUSE NO.,744,6T,H..C_ROSS  . 
NETHAJINAGAR, CHOKKASAN'DRA ' ''
T.DASARAHA;;EL1 POST?  "   
BANSAEO"R,E:~5,B'O0S7_.._.__"   »

SR1....MOT2U'RE;DDY... "  ' "
S/O BOM.ij;4A RE":DOY'»._' .
AGED ABO'UT'-.S6=Y,EARS~«., ' -
4TH CROSS, NETHAJ._IN.A,<5~AR,
CHO'KKATSAN'DR)3,' ..  
T.DASARA'HAi.L_I POST"

4 B'A.NCALO'-P.,E--'56ooS7.

 CITY MUDEICIPASCOUNCIL DASARAHALLI
 _ V BY ITS'«ADMINISTRATOR

OFFICE OF DASARAHALLI,

 *--..TC1T\'.'rwU'A'::IC1PAL COUNCIL,

T. DASARAHALLI POST,

 TU--M+<'U'R MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE 560 057.

KSR1. M MUNISWAMAPPA
"S/O LATE MAE-IIMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO. 32, CHOKKASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
MAHIMAPPA SCHOOL COMPOUND,



13

14

15

T. DASARAHALLI POST,'
BANGALORE 560 057.

SR1. K.C. YELLAPPA
S/O CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

NO. 731, 5TH CROSS,

NETHAJINAGAR,   ~

CHOKKASANDRA,
T.DASARAHALLIPOST,
BANGALORE56005W

SR1. T G VEERAPPA
S/O T P GANAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 55 Y.E'ARS,
NO. 73, 4" 'A' CROSS, _ I
NETHAJINAGAR,  '
CHOKKASANDRA,   _ 
T. DASARAHAL--L_I POST, 
BANGALORE SS0 057,  '

SRI NARAY_ANASwA.MY.i,'» ,_  A'
S/yr)'-K, M"'K_RIS«%:i.'\£AP»PA.__'

AGED ABcj>UT 45 YEARS,

HOUSE NO.' 5:24,'4TH.,,'A*=._CROSS,
NE'FHA3INA«GA'Rf~ _ __  
cHOKKASANDRA,.V ,

T. DAS'A.RAHAL1_1 POST',

';BAE\J.GALORE,' 560 057.

 SR'ifT RAY1, S/OWTHIMMAIAH SETTY
 .,A(3._EL> ABOUT 28 YEARS,

HOUSE NfO,,725, 4TH 'A' CROSS,

A' "1.YNETHAJ--.IN,AGAR, CHOKKASANDRA,

A  T. DASARAHALLI POST,

"BANGALORE 560 057.

A .--__SRi"'BORE GOWDA A N
3/0 NAGE GOWDA -

V' " AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

HOUSE NO.716, 4TH 'A' CROSS,
NETHAJINAGAR,
CHOKKASANDRA,



petitioners filed statement of objections on 17.06.2010.

The trial court has allowed the said application,Fe-e_l'in_g

aggrieved, the defendants 1 & 2 have 

petition.

2. Sri P.M.Narayan.aswamy,_ "'learr,*.»eV'd;shcounseii 

appearing for the petitioners collrietended ttrat,the.'1property
described in the scheci-.i,_l_e«. be--lVAo'n,g.As"':t_oV».n,t'he_ petitioners and
the')! are in D0ssession',...an_d.., the same in
exercise of  o_wneirs'hip.:_"ri:gvh.ts;------~:ﬁiccording to the
learned  not maintainable, the
trial cot_irt__  the application filed

belatedlylbyﬂthel resp.o'I':d':en,ts:'12 to 17. He contends that

V the irrjp'ug.nedVo'z'd,erV'is irrational and illegal.

V'eﬂ"3,"V-..:_:'iSii=i.::'"-"S.Shadal<sharaiah, learned counsel

appe.a'ring_'.fojr.V_the respondents 12, 13, 15 and 17, on the

V%li'--«._'xo_ther hand contended that, the notice was published in

  ":S'anje"v_ani newspaper, which is only an evening daily and

  no circulation in the area and as such, the respondents

/



12 to 3.7 had no knowledge of the institution of the___suit.

Learned counsel submits that, the appiicants upon ..lea:'r'n_in.g

of the filing of suit and that there is collusive  _

the piaintiffs and the petitioners herein, in_~'pub'l~;}:v.int'er_est',_ ll"

filed the application seeking impie'a'diii_g<as 

the suit. Learned counsel su_b"mits that, .thé..Vsapp~!Vi.cation = L'

being tenable, the trial court in_.,e$<jerci's_e ofhlits-d_i,sc,r7etionary
jurisdiction, has passed""ithﬁe-ordétthe BDDHCBUOH,
with which no interference"is:.'cal'£e.d._forV.'. " 

4. _T.h§e havtte stated  trial court that,

they ha'yeHln'o imphlleading of the applicants as
co--plaintiffs.-  was opposed only by the

33etitiO~'1,ers 4h"€f:§in....'~ AThe'":suit has been instituted in a

'sh'"Vrepr'es'er1t~ati've caHpa"c'ity. The applicants claim to be the

trescihdlentscof'th:e_j..area and intend to join the plaintiffs in

pros.ecutio.n:l'o-f'lthe suit. The court had directed publication

 noti€:eV__Aas required under Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC and the

  notice has been published on 04.08.2005 in Sanjevani

.'vrie§wspaper. The said paper is only an evening daily. The

K".



petitioners have not produced any material to show that,

the applicants had knowledge of the pendency of the

from 04.08.2005 till the application was

deliberately filed the application at "'bel.ate7d x"i*hie 

claim of the applicants that, they had'«Vno-A.A_kAnowled.ge of

said publication and the suit, 'caiinyot .be._ briis'he'd,"'a'side.
The trial court in exercise" of its""discre'ti.onary'juriisdiction

has allowed the applicationf  0'

5. Cons:ide:ri'n_g the Efalcts _an_cl"cir'cu"mstances of the
case, the ii'l.']Vpl:_:.'.C_i,'.'-Vf:1Ve(Il" 'o.rd'ejr._  justified. Hence, no
interference is calied,_ 'for. 

Theiietitiyonerisl  the written statement on

o9.o9.;:oo5. rielaaay in «disposal of the suit may cause

 hardship to the_ petitioners. In the circumstances, while

reieietiiag .,i;Tii'e._'Vwrit,ypetition, the trial court is directed to try

 the suit and' ciecide the same, within a period of six months

the "date a copy of this order is placed on its record

 th»e--Apetitioners. ¥.

/2".

 



In order to facilitate the trial court to dispose o._f__f the

suit within the said period, the plaintiffs 

respondents 12 to 1? herein) shall adduce and 

the plaintiffs side of evidence with_i_n~s.i><4  it

C

The defendants shall adduce and':i'cofn_nplVete>_their 

evidence, within two monthsl.§fr~o;jn the Vdat_e:lthé._;'p'i~aViiitiffs' " '

evidence is complete. 'The tri&a_i..clovLirt-~_to decide. the suit as
early as practicable and'i«'ea.t"-ariy&i~ e.i)e':r1.ti'»»'Arithin the time

stipulated supra._* 

Needliess.;:44toﬂV.Vholbsertie.V.tha.t the" contentions of both
Dartiesi'dwith"reigardvito theﬁrneritylor otherwise of the suit is
kept open for  the trial court.

 i Sd/~
 .....
Ks},/';"'l'
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sri T Venkatesh vs Smt Nagamma on 19 November, 2010

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
