Sri K Muniraju S/O Late Kenchappa vs Chikkotappa Since Dead By His Lrs on 4 March, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Muniraju S/O Late Kenchappa vs Chikkotappa Since Dead By His Lrs on 4 March, 2010

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

W.P.NO.4666/2010
3N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 47'" DAY OF MARCH 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTECE K. BI{AKTHAVATS__1fi1;A  A' 

WRIT PETETEON No.-4666/2010 (GM--cpcJ _j '  F"
BETWEEN: " 1' ' '

Sri.K.Muniraju

S / 0 Late Kenchappa

Aged about 50 years

R/ at No.432

Shivashankara Blcok

Hebbal * *  --e  }   .A % 
Banga1ore--560 024. '- _  i  " V .»,:;~..PE'l'I'I'IONER

(By Sri. C.M.Desa1' and'S§i;Z' ANi.nd{  

Chikkotéipp'a. V .    
Since deadebyhis 'L1-2"s.A' .  '

1. V sn.c4.Mun:krishna"'
' V'  / 0- '1__a}te flhikkotappa -------- --« "
, Aged abdqt 50.years
 'NO'? 1 1~7_,J-Qt'hi1'1iAla3ra

ChO1ana3'éi1:ar;2.ih2{11i
Banga1orew55_o.032.

  Smt. V'er ik_atéunma

V ' = V VD,/Q Late-.-- 'Chikkotappa

_ 2'\ged'--about 62 years
' . Wfc Late Muniyappa

 __  ' R,{at.Cho1anayakanaha11i

  ...R.T.Nagar Post.

 Banga10re--56O O32.



W.P.NO.4666/201.0

3. Suit. Seetharnma

W / 0 Venkataramanappa
Aged about 52 years

R/ at. Nadavathi Village
Kadugodi Post
Bangalore.

4. Suit. Rajarnma   

W/ o Muniyappa I

D/0 Late Chikkotappa

Aged about 45 years

R/ at. Booclhangere Village
Chanarayapatna Hobli

Bangalore Rural District. 

5. Smt. Munirathnamma
W/o Krishnappa
D / 0 Late Chikkotappa
Aged about 4-5 years." _ :[ --~~ «  --
R/ at Ch01anaj;3i<aIibﬂ_eha11i\'i}l'a_=ge  T .

.R.'1'.i\Iagar Post. ,-   A
Bangalore_.e:32L"~.__" 'i:,;___ V' , 

6. Smt.G21171gE1n1II1a"f''*-.y 4' 0  

W/0 Late'--Chikkot.ap'pia 0' ~ 
Aged a'D0ut'8¢0iyears  0
No. 1 17,. _Jothi1iilaya_ 

 R§T.N.2_iga1'r.Post  A.

' ''~Bangaiore:~5-3O O32." """  ...RESPONDENTS

 is ﬁled under Articles 226 and 227 of the

.v 'Constitution of Indi,a,e" praying to quash the order dated 23.07.2008
passed on lA~I'fui2der Section 151 of CPC., seeking permission to ﬁle
 defense of the petitioner in OS.No.6807/1995 on the ﬁle of the

I Ciiy'~--Cixtil;Judge, (CCH--25} at Bangalore under Annexure-E by issue
 {of Ce~r_tiorari..p

 This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,

   Court made the following:--



W.P.NO.4666/2010
ORDER

The petitioner/ Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6807/ 1995 file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore city, is before this for quashing the Order dated 23.07.2008 passed on I.A.l\hlop.:1'J._& 1' Section 151 of CPC seeking permission ito ;adgditio.n:a--l_u (''1 statement in the suit at Annexure 'E.'_a_nd direct.. the Ciftjflpfcirfﬂf to receive the same.

2. The brief facts of the leadir1gu"i{g»l ﬁling of the writ petition may be stated a.sunder:"' -- V The plaintiffs S.'l'~1o;6807/ 1995 against the present petitionerv declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the vsuit*-sfchedule property. The Defendant No.1 en:'te'r--e.d appearanc.e in th'ev----~s--uit through his advocate. He did not ﬁle on 23.07 .2008. He filed an application 151 of CPC to condone the delay in filing 'written statement. The application was rejected and the case was to 16.08.2008 for affidavit evidence of plaintiffs.

0. l--l:g'€~.ubse<i'uent1y, the Defendants 2, 4 and 6 approached this Court by Writ Petition No.29"/87/2009, challenging the order dated .l..u14.08.2009 passed on I.A.No.VIl refusing the receive the written La W.P.NO.-4666/2010 statement. Learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 12.11.2009, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.13,000/-- to the plaintiffs within two weeks and also to co--operate with the Trial Court for speedy disposallof and the Trial Court was also directed toj'dils'po.se'l..of the 0 four months from the date of production of copyovf After the order came to be passed PetitionNo.§£--r.E}"787'72009',' V the present petitioner filed an...app1icatioln-- l(l.-A.No.X[}~--.under Section 151 of CPC to recall the orderldlated' on I.A.No.IV and condone the delayand statement filed by the Defendant No.1. was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 'petitioner is before this Court praying for quashin 23.07.2008 passed on I.A.No.lV.

3. conn._sel for the petitioner submits that since the ijefendants 6 have been permitted by this Court to file writteli1_st.aterr1eln~t.,__'yvritten statement of the petitioner also may be Vﬁplreceived by condoning the delay. He further submits that the and 8 are the purchasers of the property from the ;"f)efendant No.1. When the application filed by the present llpetitioner (I.A.No.IV} was rejected by order dated 23.07.2008, he did approach this Court challenging that order. Only after the writ W.P.NO/L666/2010 petition was ﬁled by the Defendants 2, 4 and 6 was allowed directing the Trial Court to receive the written statement by condoning the delay, the present petitioner ﬁled another application Court to recall the order dated 23.07.2008. resorted to challenge the order dated'._231'.'0?;2008'-.0onlylibeéanse 0 Defendants 2, 4 and 6 were permitted._ to tile ._Vi}r1'ttenl:staternent. petitioner has not shown any interest'in:'proseciiting'jthei case when an adverse order came to be that the petitioner has sold the property in questionto and 6. There is no good ground for the written statement. I see no illegality of

4. In the '~resnlt;fthp:e fails and the same is hereby dismissed. g&;fut ccccc 3uDG{E 'bnv*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court