IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY or’ NovEMBER.I:2Qe9
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI_CE.._SUEI§iA SIi{
M.F.A. No. 559 of 2éD9″‘(CI?CI
:3/w. g ~ ‘ ;
M.F.A. No. 3.44.9: 2009 (Cm)
IN MFA No. 559/2009 (CPC}..__ j
BETWEEN:
1 SR1 KC RAVI ” A =
s/0 R C_HI::KKACHANNA£AH
AGEE }\BO._Uf’T 45 A V
RESIDING AT’~NO’;’8_;.’2 ‘
E1AS’i”‘§i’,ND-: V
;4’i’H 7f3LOCK,J.A’KAl\TAGAR
4- ~ ” …APPELLAN’1′
(BY SR1. KR}Si'{NASWAMY, ADVOCATE }
— EATHYANARAYANA
~ S /Q-:,ATE K R CHIKKACHANNAIAH
AGEL1 ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESEDING AT N016. 3RD MAIN ROAD
” NEAR TU LASI TALKIES
4_ CHOWDESHWARE LAYOUT, MARA’I’HAHAL.I.I
BANGALORE 560037
2 SMT ARASAMIVEA
W/O LATE CHIKKACHANNALAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
3 SRI K C CHANDRASHEKAR
S /O LATE K R CHIKKACHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R~2 <3: 3 ARE R/AT N08/2 EAST END wIINA'ROAIj'I.D –
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALQRIZ, ' '
4 SR: KC KRISHNA Ix/I'IJR'I*II'..=;' _ -r '-
S/O LATE K R CHIKIIACHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ' . ' ._
N0. S-23, OAR POLICEQUARTERS
MYSORE ROAD, BANG23LI,O»RE~ 18
5 SMTK C MANJULA D 1- I I
13/0 LATE K R C'}{1K.¥{£–\Cf§r1AN'1\IA£A}vI_
W /O. LATE KT. VEi~N_K.'X'F11;RAIN{}_l§~.I?A.
AGED AEOIIT 43'YE.ARS ;
NEXT TOE_ORE=ST OFFICE’ I
KAG.OAAI,IRII_RAI DfTTARAHAI.LI IIOELI
BANGAI;Q.RE”SOU5fE&I ‘TALUK
. RESRONDENTS
{BY SR-I Iv; T FOR R1
SRLK. LQKESEAIQADV. FOR R2, R3 & R5
SR1. I»I.I>. LEELADHAR. ADV. FOR R4 I
V’ TRIS 0.MRA”IS”‘RILED U/ORDER 43 RULE Md] OF CPC.
Q .A0AII\I.s3i’- ORDER DATED 01.12.2008 PASSED IN
.1vII’S,RETI*_IiIOI\I'”R0325/2006 IN O.S.NC).7956/2002 ON THE
FILE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUE)GE, EANOALORE.
DISMISSING THE PE’I’ITION FILED U/ORDER IX RULE 13 OF
ORE’ TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER OF JUDGEMENT
DECREE DT 22.06.2006 PASSED IN 0.8.7956/2002.
IN NEFA No. 344/2009 (CPO)
BETWEEN:
1
SR; K c KRISHNA MURTHY ~– –
S/O LATE K R CHIKKACHANNAlAH_..___ ‘ ‘
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. : ”
R/AT N0 S–23 CAR POLICE. QUARTERS ‘ ”
MYSORE ROAD .BANGALO’:REF_56O0 1’8 ” ._ .
AT PRESENT R/AT NC) 8/2 EAST ENI)»M.A:N’
ROAD, 4TH TBLOCK ,._JAYANAGAR_
BANOALORE–56o 011 ” ” — -‘
. .1; ; ..APRELLANT
{BY SR1. H P LEELADRAR. _
AND :
1
K C 11] .
S / O LATIE. K R CHIIiKACHANNAIAH
ZR/ATTNQ S113; SRDMATN ROAD
ILASI» TALKIES.
CH OWD 1;./%7’f’O UT
MARATHARALLI,_5ANOALORE»560o3’7
. AT PRESENT R’/AT NO 8/2
EAST END. MAIN ROAD
‘ 4.TH”T’BLOCK’,”JAYANAGAR
SANO_A:.ORE–560041
– SM’i7~ARAéAMMA
W./ O” C H IKKACHAN NAIAH
AQEE) ABOUT 56 YEARS.
SR1 K C CHANDRASHEKAR
S /O LATE K. R CHIKKACHANNAIAH
A AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R-2 81 3 ARE R/AT N08/2 EAST END MAIN ROAD
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE
4 SMT K C MANJULA
D/O LATE K R CHIKKACHANNAIAH
W/O. LATE KT. VENKATARANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
NEXT TO FOREST OFFICE —- =
KAGGALIRURA UTTARAHAELI HOI3LI__ _ ‘ ‘
BANGALORE SOUTH ‘I’ALU.K~~ ‘ ”
5 SR1 KC RAVI . =
S/O LATE K R CHIKKACHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS-.._ ” I
RESIDING AT NO.8/2 _ ”
EAST END MAIN ROAD-,—- ‘
4TH T ELOCK,d’AIfANAIGAR ._ ,
EANGALORE–560’I0-I 1; ; ” _
‘- . ‘ ‘ ‘;;.IgRESRONDENTS
{BY SR1 M T &€ASSTS, ‘ADVS.;. FOR R1 I
SRI._N.K, :i,_OKESII_, ‘ADV; FOR R2 TO R4
SR1: K. .;Kf?lSI9i’NA”S’WAI»/(Y, ADV. FOR R5 1
THIS MI«*A”ITSI.F’II1:EDI~”U/O. 43 RIILE Md} R/W. SEC.
151 OF CFC AGAIN:3T’T£IE ORDER DT. 1.12.2008 PASSED
IN,.«fI{IISC.PETi’FI.OI\_I”NED. S54/2006 {OS.NO. 7956/2002} ON
}5iLEi”«._QF TIIE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
I3AI\IG;éILORE.._v”DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O. IX
‘ROLE 13’€3FF1’CI3C FOR SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND. DT. 22.6.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.
uw wJ’7956/2002.
_ THESE MFA-S ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
TIIIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING-
J U D GDM E N T
This Court by order dated 16.01 2009 had issued
notice regarding admission. Thereafter. on appearance. the
learned counsel for the parties have “an
adjournment submitting that the suit is one
separate possession amongst the it
parties have arrived at a settleme1’1_t:1in_zthei
will file a compromise ‘appeals
were adjourned from time toitiniiei fllfiut. todlayfythe counsel
for the parties is not possible,
hence the ma.tt’ers’ may be e.on’sidejreed. oii merit.
” pl counsel for the parties and
perused the reeordsfi 9′ ‘
is”
J}: After hearing for some time. both the counsel
judgment and decree of the trial Court may
be”~«.setv___vasideand the matter may be remanded to the trial
Courtrior fresh consideration after affording reasonable
A’ -..opp.ort.unity to both Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 by permitting
r%f>1~
filed a separate written statement.
6
them to file the written statement and to proceed thereafter
in accordance with law.
4) In View of the above submission. the are
taken~up for final disposal.
5) The order impugnedihin both.;th:eb«.appeals. it
passed in Misc. Petition Nos.
in o.s. No.7956/2002. the cases
is the plaintiff. Hevfiled and separate
possession of 1/6″” is property. In
the said suit«’a:ll’j.t.heA_ defei1d’an’tsj_’~.appeared. Plaintiff and
Defendan.ts .laief-.the_.’wife–. and children of one late KR.
Chik}<achan11aia'h_.aur.'As.:kE}1r as the relationship between the
I)21,.l'«'_[t."i'€!VS 'is con'c'e.rned.};here is no dispute. All the plaintiff and
.' to 5 in 0.8. claim that they are the wife and
late Chikkachannaiah. Amongst the
Dei'cnd«ant's; Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement
the same was adopted by Defendant No.4. Defendant
However.
i it “”}§)e1″endant. Nos. 2 and 4 did not dispute the claim of the
7
plaintiff. Defendant No.5 disputed the Claim of the plaintiff
stating that one of the property is self~aeqL1ired”property
purchased by him out of his own earnings is
paying the bank loan, however. Defendant ilile
the written statement. Def’endanippVN’os.
lead evidence. _ V
6) ‘1’ he trial Cou1.t,a’b.asedlVon’the
the suit of the plaintiff. against: lflsame, both
Defendant Nos. 3 Misc.
Petitions. Defendants~AA3V_&Ai5 the suit.
ll?) 2 ‘ for the parties have submitted
that. as not filed the written statement
ancflljefendant’ ‘i\iov.§_Aa_nd 5 have not contested the suit, these
» appeals’«.rn.ay. be remanded to the trial Court for fresh
*eoi1s’ide1″ati.on=”after ail’ording reasonable opportunities 0
then”):
8] In View of the submissions made by both the
hpveounsel, i am of the opinion that, Without going into the
rnerits of the matters, it is just and proper to remand the
pg»
these appeals to the trial Court. for fresh consideration after
affording reasonable opportunity to Defendant. l\E–olL’5.._i’oy1″.filing
written statement allowing the parties to leadA4″evideln.c”e; : C’
9] Accordingly. these fiapppealls
impugned order passed in: _l\4{Iisc.l*
8534/2006 in o.s. Ne.795e/aloe; is set’ dudgment
and Decree dated 22.§e..20<ielll§p'de?eVeld"in_o.sl.lAlNe.795e/2002
by the XXII AdditionalH_C:ityV e§'udge_',:v:b._8angalore. is also
set aside. the concerned trial
Court. for a direction to the learned
giving an opportunity to
Defendarit'–No.' statement and an opportunity
to D_efendant._:Nos.v3 to lead evidence. if any, subject to
of the defendants–appellants in both the appeals
of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff.
Further,' trial Court is directed to proceed with the
rnatter__ll'rorn the stage of filing of written statement by
x"x.i)efe'11dant No.5 and dispose of the matter as early as
wplossible, but not later than six. months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.