High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B M Hariraju S/O Late Sri Dandu … vs Sri H M Narayanaswamy S/O Late Sri … on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Hariraju S/O Late Sri Dandu … vs Sri H M Narayanaswamy S/O Late Sri … on 1 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH coum" OF KARNATAKA AT BANG.A'L--QRaEf".,"

DATED THIS THE 15' DAY OF SEPTEMBER} 2'(j:;;dEj'*~   .

BEFORE_,......__      %
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. 
WRIT PETITION" Nos.21'3;2,;13132201AVo'.I(%t;«s{:;c.;>C) %
BETWEEN:  J   

Sri B.M.HarEraju,

Aged about 74 years, _ . '   
S/o. late Sri Dandu App"aia'nfna '
Muniswamap;;:a';,_»yZ'*     " 
R/o. Byata.ray.anaVp'ura,_' __ 
Yelahankaii-|ofa'E§t.'  .   
Bangaiore N~Q%r't}11«1T!jaVEu!<_,"' _ " "  
Bangalore "-560 O'92._  

= V' '- y '      PETITIONER
(By Sri G;P_api.yRed_dy_,_ A¢:f_\.;'.)

A32';   

E 14 , 'Sri"HA,i*~1y.N-arayanaswamy,

" _ 'Age'd_é'ab'out"--§77 years, -

._  ..S/<5; «fate  Dandu Appaianna @
' _ Muniswa_m'appa,
"R/o=; Byatarayanapura,
Yefiahanka Hobli,

._.8an'galore North Tatuk,

_ Bangaiore ~-- 560 092.

Sri Jayaram,

Aged about 62 years,

S/0. late Sri Dandu Appaianna @
Muniswamappa,

R/o. Byatarayanapura,



Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangaiore North Taluk,
Bangakore -- 560 092.

3. Smt. Pushpamma,

Aged about 69 years,

W/o. late Sri Kenchappa, 1 
R/a 3"' Cross, Kempegowda Na§_af,-_V
Near Gurappanamata, Viia~,zapura,._ '
Devanahalli Taluk,  '
Bangalore Rural District. 

...'RE+s:9oNoENTs

(By Sri P.M.i\Earayana"Sw_an"ly,.,.§}Xdv.:for»C]'R1;
M/s. Lawyers Iric. Adyo_ca_tes 8; S'oii'civtorsjVVfo'r R2 & R3)

These writ 'petitio'risEire...-file-:d"'under Article 226 and
227 of__the".CoraA1s;titut.iyo'n_of Inydiai, praying to quash the
orderidatedtt16.041IfV2'01{}.p'assed by the Court of I Additional
City (:__ivil_'Jud'ge;~-_VBar1'g.alo.re -on I.A.s No.XI and XII in
O.S.63'5.8/2004,' wee An__riexure -- K.

_ _These~ oetit;'0,ns"v_coI'hing on for preliminary hearing in
'Bfgyroutp this "clay, the Court made the following:

ORDER

._ §3e’t’itioh:es*”.has filed a suit for partition and separate

possessior.’Cclaiming 1/3″‘ share in the suit schedule

pro_pert’i’es. Respondents/defendants have contested the

I “‘su’i’t”ciaim. Issues have been framed and the suit is at the

“-‘stage of triai. Petitioner flied his affidavit evidence and the

documents were also marked on 7.8.1008. Matter was

/’

/I

adjourned to 15.9.2008 for cross~examinatio_’n.«.:’f”~«.:”‘Qn

account of illness of the petitioner, he could’:–not::’p:.rese’r:té

himself before the Court and the.matter.’di’di”n:o;t4 Vp”ro4_’cee’ci_,.uu

Petitioner filed an application

discard his evidence and to’p.er:n_it his son _to,cie5pose as his’-if

power of attorney holder. Th_e_.Trial”~Court havyingfifound no
merit in the applicatioi5.i’l:ha.s:’dism.iss’ed .:tVhe_same. This writ
petition is directed agai’nsi:

2. the respondents

submitted objection for the petitioner to
deposed’ i.before=._éth.e Commissioner and if an

ai0p.iic’ati.on if is,__V”fi|ed’V’ seeking appointment of Court

Commiss-io%”rie.r to record the evidence of the plaintiff, the

defendants vi-i.liv” have no objection for such a course of

act”ion.,__* i.ea’rned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he mfaydbe granted an opportunity to approach the Trial

A’ seeking an order to appoint a Court Commissioner to

.,,..record the evidence of the plaintiff. In the said view of

the matter, it is unnecessary to go into the legality or

otherwise of the matter.

In the result, the writ petitions stand dispos’e.c_f’~V–of.

The petitioner is at liberty to make an

the Trial Court to appoint an adv_ocat_e asall’C’o:;j:.n9i’iss’ione_r””

to record his evidence and submit tl”.~.f_e”sanie_ torthie ifioprti.

If such an application is mad_e-,._thefliT-rial tcotlrmatuei -5allow=:”

the application and __appoinp_t_..:VV§3n__ ‘advo.catie:,_’AasvV5 a Court
Commissioner for the afo’resaid§_p>urpose;l –_The plaintiff shall
make an apblication for’t’h–é”&sa’id_’p_orifiloiééion the next date

of hearing,a.nd;j:”the.v Coiiirtll pass the orders

immepliately’t.5’thereafte;r’vllsince the defendants have no
objection’, ” _ A

Since themsluitiis one for partition and separate

pro_s’ses:sion”:and has been filed on 23.8.2004, the Trial

Coort to expedite the trial and dispose of the

suit withinv period of 8 months from the date a copy of

i this order is placed on its record.

_ 561/
$13693

Ksj/~