Sri G S Shankaralingaiah vs G S Rudraprasad on 23 July, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri G S Shankaralingaiah vs G S Rudraprasad on 23 July, 2014

Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale

                        -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2014

                      BEFORE
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

       WRIT PETITION NO.29081 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:
SRI.G.S.SHANKARALINGAIAH
S/O LATE G.R.SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O BEHIND B.D.O. OFFICE
CHITRADURGA ROAD
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.J.M.UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1. G.S.RUDRAPRASAD
   S/O LATE G.R.SADASHIVAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
   R/O RUDRABHISHEKA NILAYA
   2ND MAIN, VIDYANAGARA
   CHITRADURGA TOWN

2. G.S.BHASKAR SHIVACHARYA
   S/O LATE G.R.SADASHIVAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
   R/O K.G.T.COMPOUND
   TYAGARAJANAGAR
   CHALLAKERE
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
                            -2-


3. G.S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
   S/O LATE G.R.SADASHIVAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
   R/O NEAR AKSHAYA MILK CENTRE
   TYAGARAJANAGAR
   CHALLAKERE
   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT       ...         RESPONDENTS

(SMT.ANUSHA ASUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI.A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
 RESPONDENT NO.1
 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE SERVED
 AND UNREPRESENTED)
                           ---

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.6.2012 passed in O.S.No.20/2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere on I.A.No.23 vide Annexure-'J', etc. This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:-

P.C:

This writ petition, by defendant No.3, is preferred against the order dated 21.6.2012 passed on I.A.No.23 filed under Order 11, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking interrogatories as mentioned in the schedule to the -3- application. The court below for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 7 and 8 allowed the application.

2. Mr.J.M.Umesha Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset invited my attention to the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.13429/2011 and submitted that it was not open to respondent/defendant No.2 to file application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

3. It is true that in the order dated 12.9.2011, this Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner therein, i.e. respondent No.1 herein can invoke provisions of Order 11 of CPC relating to Discovery and Inspection to get particulars of the properties from the plaintiff who had contracted with the Indian Oil Corporation. This however, does not mean that it was not open to respondent No.1 to invoke -4- the provisions of Order 11 of CPC relating to Discovery and Inspection to get particulars from other defendants.

In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AHB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court