Sri K R Govindaraju Shetty vs The Mysore Urban Development Authority on 4 November, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K R Govindaraju Shetty vs The Mysore Urban Development Authority on 4 November, 2009

Bench: Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH coum or: KARNATAKA AT B_{:;~r:fc3xA__i_;:3r:.§'::.y

DATED THIS THE 4*" my 05 NovEM.5a,.§§"RV,é;j39:_9 J' 

THE HON'BLE MR.3UST_ICEA'R._A V'I MA:;}IA§4'AA'TH':';  V

WRIT PETITION: N0.1ﬁ'Si?,§;GF 2oi37(vCr~1-icpc)
BETWEEN: ' 1' 2 '

Sri K.R.Goviné§a~r_ajL.§_'§VHé:ﬁ?c\y¥:  
S/0 late F{a._ma;k»ar_is§myaSiiettyy,  
Aged about'6V1'=~y-§;ars,--.,__   * '

Carrying <::gr:'¥.b:gsine's.s'Ta'1: Sh'op ':\I6.11,
Near.av':)'uv;31i:ny Co#33Vple.x,=_ ' .. 
Srira:mpet,'i~1.ysy9r'.e.   _ .' ...PETITIONER

(By S:?i._§(4uymar._ By C.S.Prasanna Kumar,
Advocates)» V  ' 

 

' ,. Tf"2.e My~sC>.fév Urban Devesiopment Authority,

'- AR'epre$éj'nt'etf by Its Cammissioner.

;l;haTn.si'«._yLakshimi Bai Road,

...RESPONDENT

(By" ?.S.Man3unath, Advacate) This Writ Fetition is fiieci under Articies 226 and 227' of the Censtitution of India praying to quash the orcier passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Mysme by Its, order dated 6.9.2907 or by its cerder dated 6.9.2007 in 0.S.No.14/2000 W4"

nameiy Annexure-L and consequentiy plai-nt.

This petition coming on for preii.niin'a%fy '§'V1V0.é1'Kifig"VV in 'B' group this day, the Court made;t'he*foVl_lowiVng3j A' 9--'-'+!=7'i~.4~l='3 . 1 Aggrieved by the ofgieVe;ig:!.a'te'd oi-"9-#39937 passed by the II Additionei:i'§.'.isii!__i§§:<ii§e:_:{:S»enior Division), Mysore, in_ ioﬁefendant has preferred 2;. 1"' -.itv_i'espondent-piaintiff fiied

0.S.NAo..VJ.2'./2'0oiU:.:'se_Q.g§i'i1g canceliation of the decree passed uir.w.. '0i'S.i€ioi.i735/1990 dated 4-12--1992 .p"a§sé'"c; 15-gﬁthe Vifndditsenaa City Civil Judge (Junior 'VD'i\iisi'own),kVi'.i~.,Vii=iysore, for possession and other c'o_nseq:ié~Vntia§ reliefs.

The defendant fiieci an application under AV§{')1;der 7 Ruie 11(6) of CPC seeking to reject the piaint on the ground that the suit is not eféw maintainable. The trial Court rejected Hence, the present Petition.

4. The learned counsel ::'_ap'pe'a~riv'rig'p Petitioner contends that Vth:§~~.t_rialA'Court ic.oni;n"a-witted and error in passing the ord'e--r._a_n§d hence interference is calle"d'i'for';i._vf§~l:é_e that the trial Court did notftake respondent's suit was§'t"inj._eg=,§ Court committed an ei'l"'0'7'4.v.A:'E%" conclusion that the under which law the suit is:'hVa:*.red.,Ea'i'._vAc_c'ordingly the application was reiectiede 5i~"_"p:.;g'A':*iV't§1e other hand, Srl F>.S.Marz}'unath, the ieiérsjrkdhvéicounsel appearing for the respondent izontends that no error has been committed by the "it:-ial Court that calls for interference. It was the obligation of the defendant to state under which provision the said application has been filed. W4"

Further, by placing reliance on the averm:e~r:ts.'__i_1':"fc::c:ViA'e.¢ in the plaint he contends that he certified copy of the and secured the same on:1__1--10A'-*1§96. Th'-er:éfore:,A.t'he'»»t "J suit for cancellation is fileV£iw»..\}fuit_hinV".u. 'y'e-arslﬂfrom the date of the 3udgnaen_t'~in 19§8:

6. An order would show an error in reiectingr.lrrllef"'$39p~:i'§a:£As¢n::.d.tri:»lEed by the petitioner.

Adm:i'tte'd;ly,v was well defended by their counsvels._'iri'._vGg§?;'.No.2735/1998. The reasons acitorded bf"-thﬁarespondents is that their counsel ' ,.h'as am fi_¥ed_the written statement and has failed to "attendAsthlevllcase. It is submitted that there is it aiasented himself.

neg.li;"gence on the part of the counsei and he has s 'K?

'Ever: the re-suit of the suit was not intimated to them. It is hard to imagine as to how the statement made by the respondents in their complaint can be prima facie accepted. If not the \?/<'""

counsei, it is the duty of the litigant himsei-f.'to__'__k'ee"pé track of the case and the progress bei[l§!"v"'E':11.av(}.,:é:~ the case. The laxity of the respoindepnts; is also_ that requires to be considered.

7. The learned. cc.i_ensei:«.__'to'r,thevvireispondent contends that in 11(d) the specific pirivoir:is:.i'onv;:--.'cif"ifia:ir»r::Vii':--Vs'hhntiid be invoked. Thereforeip tags; to state as to under which to do so, wouid not er1'tVi_t'ie to any reiiefr Tam unable to 1a'ccept"th.e 'cointiention. The petitioner has stated in stateurhent as weli as in application as to iisziiiit is bereft of cause of action and on ii'mitatioVir§;.Ai It is further mentioned in the affidavit _ *the Judgment Debtor has put in appearance in "f'Ex..ecution No.21}./1993 on 2-7-4.993 itself. ::Therefore, the respondent was weii aware of the proceedings at ieast on 2--'7-1993. The respondent is WA"

unable to dispute the statement. The conter:-ti'o§j_i't'h\at' the provision of law shouid be of the Order 7 Rule 11(d) ef1_ct:>:c,;e' j;thiei«e'rere.,siiiifades into insignificance. The,__triai|"L_C'ourteoshoiulid considered the question relating to'-c'_au'seV'of action as well as limita'ti._ofn \.$:hi.!e"-«c;oVri's.iciering the said application.

Forgthe order dated by the learned II Division), Mysore, is hereiayxiseti. filed by the plaintiff is Ti1'e.i,s__uii; of the plaintiff is dismissed as ' .e.Vb'eingV4VbaV'i=rié'd_ by iimitation. Grdered accordingly. Sd/-

HEDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court