Karnataka High Court
C O Gangadhara vs Srinivasa on 31 August, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.32104/2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
C O GANGADHARA
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT EDIGARA STREET,
BEHIND K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND,
K.P. MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DIST-571313. ...PETITIONER
( By Sri. M B NARGUND & SMT. SUMATHI S ADVOCATES )
AND :
1 SRINIVASA
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT SHIVA NILAYA,
FORMERLY CALLED QUALITY
WINES BUILDING,
DEVIATION ROAD,
K P MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571313.
2
2 PUTTA VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT EDIGARA STREET,
BEHIND K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND,
K.P. MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
3 SMT. SUMITRA W/O Y K SHANKAR
D/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT COURT ROAD,
WEST BEHIND JAIL QUARTERS,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571 313.
4 SMT. LAKSHMI W/O K V DEVARAJU
D/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT TIRUPATHI-TIRUMALA
NILAYA, BEHIND V.H.P. SCHOOL,
COURT ROAD,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571 313.
5 MANJUNATH
D/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT SOMANNA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, BEHIND
BASAVESHWRA THEATRE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571 313.
6 THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3
R/AT 4TH CROSS,
BHRAMARAMBA EXTN.
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571 313.
7 PAPANNA
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SIDDARTHA NILAYA,
BEHIND ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL,
CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313
8 VENKATESH
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 23/626,
CHIGURUNILAYA,
2ND CROSS,
SHANKARPURA EXTN.,
CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313
9 KRISHNA
S/O LATE S P OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT PWD B BLOCK,
THIRUPATHI TIRUMALA NILAYA,
GIRLS HOSTEL ROAD,
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571313. ...RESPONDENTS
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
relevant record and to quash the order dated 3.3.2012
in Misc.5/12 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) and
CJM, Chamarajanagar vide Annexure-G.
4
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.115/2007 for partition and separate possession of one-tenth share in the suit schedule properties. It was decreed through compromise. Thereafter, defendant No.7 therein filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.5/2012 under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w. Section 96(3) and 151 of C.P.C. Seeking for a prayer to set aside the compromise decree passed in the suit and to reopen the case for partition. The Trial Court passed the impugned order directing the registry to reopen the proceedings of the suit and consequently, issued notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.8 in the Miscellaneous Petition has filed the present petition. 5
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the question of opening of O.S.No.115/2007 does not arise at this stage of the proceedings as the suit itself was decreed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. He further contends that, without giving an opportunity of hearing, even before issuing notice of the Miscellaneous Petition, the Trial Court has reopened the suit.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on examining the impugned order, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court. By the impugned order what has been stated is that the registry is directed to reopen the proceedings and to issue notice to the petitioner. It is apparent that, what was intended by the trial Judge was not that the suit is restored. The intention was to issue notice on 6 the Miscellaneous Petition. Therefore, in my considered view, what was intended by the trial Judge is not reopening of the suit at that stage, but only issuing notice to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Judge cannot be read as the suit being reopened. Since notice of the petition has been ordered, the Trial Court is directed to consider the plea of the petitioner and other respondent and thereafter pass appropriate orders.
Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/