Karnataka High Court
Sri T Rajanna S/O Late Thimmaiah vs Smt Lakshmidevamma (Deceased) on 21 November, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
W.P.Nos.38139/2012 & 38346/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri.T.Rajanna,
S/o.Late Thimmaiah
(In The Trial Court The Name
Is Described As Raja @ Rajanna)
Aged about 47 years,
R/At No. 93/1, Kanakanapalya,
II Cross, 8th Main Road,
II Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore 560 011. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.K.N.Dayalu, Advocate )
AND:
1. Smt.Lakshmidevamma (Deceased)
Sri.Chikkathiammaiah,
S/o.Late Dodda Mudlaiah,
Aged About 82 Years,
R/At Nagarabhavi Village,
Opp. Maruthi I.S.E.C.Road,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072.
2. Sri.Kamaraju,
2
S/o.Thimmaiah,
Aged About 56 years,
No 93/1, Kanakanapalya,
II Cross, 8th Main Road
II Block, Jayanagar
Bangalore 560 011. .. Respondents
(By Sri.S.Rajendra, Adv. For C/R1,
Notice To R-2 D/W Vide Court Order Dt.21.11.2012 )
******
These Writ Petitions are filed U/A 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the records of
O.S.No.5066/2000 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil
Judge, CCH No.19, Bangalore.
These Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. In these writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 29.8.2012, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.5066/2000 on I.A.Nos.10 and 11 and application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC. 3
3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the applications filed by the first respondent and permitted him to come on record as LR., of the original plaintiff Smt.Lakshmidevamma.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
5. The original plaintiff Smt.Lakshmidevamma filed suit in O.S.No.5066/2000 for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the first respondent has filed applications to come on record as LR of the original plaintiff Smt.Lakshmidevamma. The Trial Court by its order dated 29.8.2012 has allowed the applications. Therefore, these writ petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the applicant is the son-in-law of the original plaintiff Smt.Lakshmidevamma and he cannot be a LR., of the 4 deceased Lakshmidevamma and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Further he submitted that the LR., was not brought on record within time and therefore, the proceedings have abated and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in CRP.No.150/2006 the first respondent was brought on record as LR. The first respondent has prosecuted SLP as LR. Therefore, application was not required. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1991(4) KLJ page 270.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.5066/2000 has been filed by the original plaintiff 5 Smt.Lakshmidevamma for permanent injunction. The suit has been decreed exparte. The petitioner has filed misc. petition. It has been allowed. CRP has been preferred in CRP No.150/2006. The first respondent has come on record as LR. The first respondent has prosecuted SLP No.28411/2008 as LR. Thereafter, application has been filed to come on record in O.S.No.5066/2000. It was allowed. The petitioner has challenged it in W.P.No.22631/2012. This Court, by its order dated 31.7.2012, has permitted the first respondent to make necessary applications. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.10 and 11 have been filed. The Trial Court has allowed the applications. This Court in KUTTAPPA vs. KATRIKOLLI SOMAIAH reported in 1991(4) KLJ page 270 has held, when LR., has come on record in the revision petition, non-filing of LR., application in the original suit will not result in abatement of the suit. No application is required. It is sufficient if it is brought to the notice of the Court. This decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The first respondent has prosecuted CRP and SLP as LR. The 6 impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in these writ petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.