Karnataka High Court
Sri S O Sulaiman Lebba vs Sri S R Shivaprasad on 8 June, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.17368 OF 2012(GM-CPC)
WP.NOS.17368-369/12(GM-CPC)→ Corrected Vide
BETWEEN : Chamber order
dated 20.06.2012
SRI S O SULAIMAN LEBBA
S/O MR. SYED OTHUMAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.6/4, MOSQUE STREET,
KAYAMOZHI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU. ...PETITIONER
( BY M/S.M L GOWDA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1 SRI S R SHIVAPRASAD
S/O S.R. RAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.59 UPSTAIRS
MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD,
V.V.PURA,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
2 SRI. M/S MOHIADEENIYA HARDWARES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.67,
2
OLD KASAI ROAD,
BANGALORE-02
REP. BY ITS PARTNERS
A) MR. S.S. MOHIADEEN THAMBY
B) MR. S.O. SULAMAN LEEBA
C) MR.S.O.NAJIMUDEN
D) MR. S.O.BAZUL ASHAB
E) MR. S.O SIDDIQUE
F) MR.V.I.SEGU MOHIADEEN
3 MR. S.S. MOHIADEEN THAMBY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O SYED OTHUMAN
NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD,
REGIPET,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
4 MR. S.O NAJUMUDDEN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SYED OTHUMAN
NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD,
REGIPET BANGALORE - 560 002.
5 SRI. S.O. BAZUL ASHAB
PARTNER
M/S MOHIADEENIYA HARDWARE
NO.65, OLD KASAI ROAD,
REGIPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
6 MR. S.O. SIDDIQUE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SYED OTHUMAN
NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD
REGIPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
3
7 MR. V.I. SEGU MOHIADEEN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O S.S. V. IBRAHIM
NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD
REGIPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
8 MR. MOHD. ALI (SINCE DECEASED)
REPRESENTEDBY HIS LRS.
I) MRS. SOUBHAN ALI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD,
RAGIPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
II) MR. MUSTAFA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.67, OLD KASAI ROAD,
RAGIPET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.4.2012 ON IA.NOS. 22 AND 23
IN OS NO.261/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
The plaintiff filed a suit directing the first defendant to hand over physical possession of the schedule premises. When the matter was set down for arguments I.A.22 was filed by defendant No.3 to strike out the pleadings in the plaint. I.A.No.23 was filed to strike out the portions of evidence in the affidavit. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed both the applications. Hence, the present Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications are required to be allowed in order to protect his legal rights. The trial Court while considering the plea of the petitioner was of the view that there is no merit in the application and rejected the same. It held that the evidence of the plaintiff's side is completed. The defendant has continued his habit of filing of such applications which is not maintainable. Under these circumstances, there was a direction by the Hon'ble High Court by fixing the deadline for hearing the suit by 5 21-4-2012. In view of the attitude of the petitioner, the applications are dismissed and even costs are imposed.
3. On hearing the counsels and examining the records, I do not find any error that calls for interference. Under the facts & circumstances involved and in view of the finding recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner is in the habit of filing application only to drag on the proceedings and costs have been imposed which is not paid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the said costs of Rs.3,000/- will be paid within by 11-6-2012.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk