Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramakrishnaiah vs Bylappa on 19 March, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.11677/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.145, 80 FEET ROAD
NAGASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST
BANGALORE - 560 073.
2. SRI RAMAIAH
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNASANDRA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 123.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, ADV.)
AND:
1. BYLAPPA
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. SRI RANGAPPA
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2
3. SRI CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
4. SRI HOSALAIAH
S/O LATE D.MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 ALL ARE R/AT
MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNASANDRA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 123.
5. SRI PAPEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
5(a) SMT. ANNAPURNA
D/O LATE T. PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5(b) SRI B.P.RAVI
S/O LATE T. PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
5(c) SRI B.P.KIRAN
S/O LATE T. PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
5(d) SRI. B.P.PRAKASH
S/O LATE T. PAPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6. SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
7. SRI BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3
8. K.G.VENKATAPPA
(RETIRED SCHOOL MASTER KULNAHALLI)
S/O LATE GANGA THIMMAIAH
AGED 66 YEARS
9. SRI KRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE GANGATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
10. SRI RANGAPPA
S/O LATE CHENNARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
11. SRI KANIME BYLAPA
S/O LATE CHENNARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
12. SRI CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE CHENNARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
13. SRI MUDDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
13(a) SMT. THIMMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. MUDDAIAH
13(b) SRI SIDDAGANGAMMA
D/O LATE SRI MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
13(c) SRI SIDDARANGAIAH
S/O LATE SRI MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
13(d) SRI KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
13(e) SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SRI MUDDAIAH
4
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
13(f) SRI BETTASWAMY
S/O LATE MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
13(g) SMT. ANUSUYAMMA
D/O LATE MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESPONDENTS ALL ARE R/AT
KENGAL KEMPOHALLI VILLAGE
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
14. SRI LAKSHMAMMA
D/O MAHIMANNA @ MAHIMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MANDIGERE VILLAGE AND POST
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC
AT NELAMANGALA TO DISPOSE OF THE MISC. PETITION
103/2012 AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE VIDE ANNX-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners along with others had filed O.S.No.276/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. Suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written 5 statements. On 17.09.2012, suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Petitioners have filed Misc.Petition No.103/2012, to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default on 17.09.2012 and to restore O.S.No.276/2001, later registered as No.80/2009 for consideration and decision. This writ petition has been filed to direct the trial Court to decide the Misc.Petition No.103/2012 within a time frame and as an interim measure, to injunct the respondents/defendants 5 to 14 and persons claiming under them from alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights on the suit property.
2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ record.
3. Suit having not been prosecuted diligently has stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.09.2012. A Miscellaneous petition having been filed on 17.10.2012, the trial Court on 18.10.2012, ordered issue of notice to the respondents returnable by 14.12.2012. Since steps 6 was not taken till 14.12.2012 and steps was taken only on 14.12.2012, notice was ordered to be issued returnable by 18.02.2013. Learned counsel submits that the case now stands adjourned to a date in April, 2013.
4. Looking at the conduct of the petitioners in not prosecuting their suit and not taking steps in miscellaneous case and not even seeking any interim order in Misc.Petition No.103/2012, I do not find any justification to direct the trial Court to expedite the Miscellaneous case.
Petition is rejected. However, it is open to the petitioners to seek interim order, if any, in Miscellaneous case and if an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca