.. 1 -
W.P.NO.3141 2008
in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAH RE
DATE!) T!-H8 THE 4" DAY OF APRIL 2008
BEFORE
THE Horram MR. JUSTICE H. G. mung}: If " I
WRIT PE'I'ITION" 140.3141 OF 2908 '{(}_I4'\v.§H-H(i:"I3VV<i":}'
BETWEEK:
SM'? JAYAMMA
W/O IWNAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R,fAT No.24, izssm A CROSS' A.
I'I'I'AMADU, BSK 389 S'E'AGE--.,._ *-- --_
sun PHASE ' 'I
BANGALORE -- 560 085
;;I}fEIf'ITI0NER
(BY SR1 I-I fIfIiIMhIAI'AI~I,__AUV"IP§5I§ *
M/S f)IKSHi'P1A_SSGCIA'_F£§$;ADVS)
AND:
1 SRI RAJU SIG LATE-_ APPAIAH
AGED AB'oL,I'I"45' YEARS
. I21,/AT~:TTAMAI3IJ VILLAGE
'-VIBAIIASHANKARI PHASE
' u , BIIINGALQRE ~ 560 085
2 . "-'.'fI'IIEvCcI,MII»1:ssIoNEIe
K IBANGAIIQRIE BRUHAT
"-MAI«IAI:A.:3ARA PALIKE
BANGALORE -- 560 £301 ...RESPONDEN'I'S
=.'I_'E«II§WRI'f' PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2126 85
i£='.2_?.QF'_'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
._ *'f'H'E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED 0:»: IA-IV DATED 15.1.2003 IN
"o,s.;No.4573/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
, "COURT HALL No.13, A'? ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING OR FOR PRELINIIIKEARY
HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
w.P.N0.3141/2008
ORDER
This writ petition by the plaintifi’ is r
against an interlocutory order dated 3
(Annexure-D) passed by the trial {he’;:
the XXXIII Add}. City cm: Jugjge, Bgngazore’; ‘mg:
suit in O.S.No.46’?8/2005. order,
the trial Court has mi.A.No.4
filed by defendant No. 1 finder dto Order 8
Rule 1 read of cm
Procedure to aeeeep flied in the
suit.
2. I hare heard .1;1*;reAAiear£nied counsel appearing for
the impugned order at
relevant to refer to the following
: V’ of. Court in allowing the aforesaid
– « jv e,f_j131ieatioi1.; 3
There is a delay of about 1 year 10
months 17 days 9* 30 days is calculated
amzg;°9od@ssscazcuzated:hereasa
delay of 1 year 8 months I 7 days. The suit
5<\5/
W.P.NO.3141i2008
of the plamtifi' is for declaration of
ectsementary rights over the plaint schedute ' -.
Pro}'»'3"ty- Therefore rights of the 'etf "
concerned here. The defendant 4.
written statement along fivttft'
IAJV is aléowed, the d€fefIt:t;5.§I7:1It}VO. not. "
taking fitrther fitev ht::.
statement. when Na it ‘tttofig
with IA.No.IV
statement, it czetezys;m;tgs ..eté;,fendant
No.1 to rights
of the 19° the
I” to drag on
tuould have filed
Vhetve seen some time
for on I./UV and then he
_ _; tuauzd have ‘taken time after allowing IAJV
A tef statement. In AIR 2005
ii etjcouzt 3304 — therein it has been
A. Staten? object is to expedite the hecming
to scuttle the some and further the
petoer efoottrt to extend time under Order 8
H Rule 1 C.P.C. is not completely taken away
by amendment made to Order 8 Rate 1
C.P.C. however departure therefrom would
be by way of exception. In AIR 2005
XV
– 4 _
W.P.NO.3141/2008
Supreme Court 2441 therein it has been
stated costs may be imposed and Qffidavit
or documents in support of the grounds
pleaded by the defendant for extension’ ef– t
time may be demanded depending on ‘%
facts and circumstances ofwa’ given 4′
Therefore in this case there
year 8 months in .»j”3Zl_in.g
statement. In AIR 2O()7».VVV:.S’:tpren:e_
2859 there wasvdelay of’
months in filing and
therein costs ofRe.Vw}–{},. O00,/A
95 ~ uataotle” in
case Of about 1 year 8
the of the parties are
gsertouetye-ttnvzélved and therefore costs of
130.0/-V”ViS””‘irnposed in condoning the
” ~ the written statement and to
._ written statement on
8
“”4-.rec::5fdL
” = have examined the matter in the light of the
Apfirjiziipies laid dawn by the I-Ion’ble Supreme Court in
HVVSURYA mzv RA! v/s. CHANDER RA! (AIR
W.P.NO.314 1/2008
2003 SC 3044) relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
pertaining to interlocutory orders passed by ._
subordinate to the High Court.
4». In my opinion, the impugned, éorigiervéiidoesii’ V
suffer from any error of juIisdictigin1_Qf ‘e1TorVV”ap;:’art§:i1Ei.A –
on the face of the record to iixterfezierioevéiiiidier
the exoaordinazy jurisdictjoii or ‘Vv’i:Z’_ljS C’}o’u1*t~’V’under
Arficies 226 8:. 227 of tlie vilifgdia,
5. -‘to the facts of the case,
the triaié to dispose of the suit
expeefiitioeusly éixidi any event, within 8 months from
dateflu reeei___pt/ production of a copy of this order.
sd/4
Petitioii ii dismissed but with the aforesaié
Iudg3’
VA ‘ KM/Ata