Loading...

Mr A Chandrashekar vs Smt Magadambal on 2 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mr A Chandrashekar vs Smt Magadambal on 2 December, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil


-‘ §x3_.’

V'{L§i”” 2 =

1

WP 10652;’20i}8

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THES THE 23″?’ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

BEFORE}

THE HON’BLIEl MR.J{}S’FICE B.S.P15:T1L

WRIT PETITION No.1o65g_1_2,oos {gm-cI§~e:f’ ”

BETWEEN:

MR.A.C3HANDR’ASHEKAR,
S/0.LATE RATCHAYARAM,
AS2323 mom? 44 ‘fEA§S,
RXAT NO, :0 {OLD No.9),

‘P’ STREET, LANGFORD ROAD,
SHANTHENAGAR,

BANGALORE »- 550 0:27,

{BY SRI RAJAGOPAL mama, 25;i,’?§J’.} ” .5

AND:

1, gm’. MAGA1:>;2MBé.L,”” .–

vs/0 LATE R’;ATCH£$YAk?_AM~,”

Aggy; ABOIJT 67. YEARS.

” $;}2Vi’%”A;rvié;}-:~J<§EL§.RAz~¢, H """ H
V ' :73; L:'{?_'EL~I?;£,T'<fi_HAYARAM,
' .a.<.;1?«:.::r A13-i}UTV'£-:3Q_1.&'EARS.

SR; ég.?R:T£§ég_:;"éAJ,
8/ C?" LA'1."E Rv.P;'§'C§~IAYARz'~,i'vi,

flea

'V AGED~~.aB~:0uT 38 YEARS;

4:4)» sérJ:L’;=,..R¥PAi>MAVAT}-2:,

‘ -..I3/»f3..i2.AT’C}{AYARAM,
5,333 ABOUT’ 47 mares,

“Eur. NALIN1,
D/G RATCHAYARAM,
AGE?) ABOLIT 42 YEARS.

V1i>E;”r’*:?I’:oNEI2>

‘iii? 18652/2008

6. SMT, fi.PANI{£%.JAM,
£3] 0 R.ATCHAY£&E3ZAfs.§,
AGEIZ} ABGUT 35 YEARS’

ALL ARE} REISEDZNG AT’ NO304,
19TH MAIN, 631 BLOCK,
KCJRAMANGALA,

BANGALORE — 550 0955 ..REsPc-§~;:13E,rkz§gf:§” A’

(BY SR1 KAKREISE-INA, ADV. FOR’ C/R-1 85 A

THIS §3’E1′”!’I’I’ION IS FELEB uN9ER4’A.R3T–:C:LEs 212′?’
THE CONSTITUTION OF’ IE’~IDIs% ‘:’>r2AY1Nc3’T(> YSSUE »,F;~-.T¢£f}?2T 035′

{ZERTIORARE SETTING AS1915: ANVNEXURE-:3 THE ORDER
DATE’:-D 15.042608 PASSED ON 1.A,N{3.._1 FILED ‘Uz~;nER SECTEON 5
0? THE LIMITATION ACT BYTHE IVADLDL. “CITY cm; 8:; SESSIONS
JUDGE, ‘MAYOHALL {sea ..r§'<3.21;i, E3Ai'4IC;£'xLORE cm? PASSED IN
Misc. 25849/2068 VIRTUALLE? ms.MV:;'sss1NG_'_?H:+: _MISCELLANE<3L¥S
PETITION FILE!) ma SE3'F'P}NG._ASE_DF3 *n~1.Ev–§:A._R«:;,1ER ORDER OF
DISMISSAL 0? New-PR:3'sEC13T1cr§'%.._ 01:' ._<3,s.N0.1o213/1994
THEREBY «::;s.L1,1j:4<:«4._I5*-QR *_TI~§E;'<.V~'VRECGRBS____fF'R0M THE COURT
BELOW. : – – V

mas 97r3:fI;:*19:r;#,:s:.V_'zi:::a1u;::4si2:3V._ON' FOR PRELIMIEXEARY HEARING,
THIS DAY;7I_'HE_ c:L;i:2fIf’A:vm1}:«*;-r;f’:~a.*f«; ‘FOLLOWING:

‘ $231331:

‘\2s.?};fit 1§é’tit.iQ:Q is fllffd challenging the order dated

gsgésgd on EA No.1 in Miscellaneous Case

1~»2§».*.-“3’:*$<349 '/:2Viii:;§$;A'{;;""

?eiit§f3ne1*'hereifl hack fflfld the miscefianaous case seeking

fi:§ :,. asicie tbs dismissal of his suit hearing

?%o.1(}21:3f 19534 filed. for partition and sepaxate possession

» 1.:-zfihis ghares: in the jaint family groperties. The said. suit came {G

be dismissezi on 19.19.1996 for 1:1on~prosecntion. Having kept

56

WP 15:2,/2093
3

quiet for a peried cf nearly 11 yttars, the p€ititi()I1€I’ herein moved

the: court beiow by filing a miscefianmus psiition seekitzgstzzt set

afiidff’. the dismimal of the suit. Along with the

petition, he filed an appiicatimt IA No.1 seeking” K V’

dfiiay of naarly 11 years in flinzlg the }21iS»€t€:’I1a:3.€{3us-:

3. In the affidavit filed in s91:1.p;30rt”<}t"'*the a;§;31it:§3tion;:

petitioner herein contended that not Vpwtrsué; tfiaj stiit nor
did he take steps for restcsfaticn tit" 't1ie:'jsati1e'as th§é"twéé_§p0:1dents
llereia who are Ilene other and sisters

assured him that '1:€: Wil1::be€give11..Aiii%3'~.c1ttt§Vf'éha1*e in the joint

family pr<ipe%ues;ttt gems:umher sm1 that in the mozlth sf
January 2095; he in FDP No.15011/2004.

Pursuant to the 'tzzttered appearance through an

" But, as his advocate did not inform

.abc't3t"£:h.¢_iz1 the FD? piflceeéiags and as he was told

tt1at'tt1£:tA<:ot:ict,¥'1}p.§i%:1u Judge had been transfarreci, he did not file

' 52.113? apfiiicétjon seeking to set aside the dismissai of the suit,

}:u.–¢-}:!'.AA{.§.;i.f4i'-."11€H'f-i:i.f: any objection in H1»: FD? praceedings. He has

'gone on stating that in the f;{'St week of March 2008, he

" to know from his relatives that the tespondants had

utaztanaged to obtain an order of attachment of one of 1:116 joint

5%

WP IO652;'2OQ8

3

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
03:1 Careful perusal of the materials on recortl, I find the

Court below has not committed any illegality

jurisdiction or for that matter error apparent on fa;o.e”

record so as to warrant interference 3.3.1′ the zeta-it.Aju:ise1ietio1i;»’«’

17. Petifioner has been grossly negEge1%.t in ;jtooeot1ti:3g”vh’is*

case flied in O.S.No.10213/1994′;z:VHe meet;¢:~yo;;}1g¢:1ttat;gm at

the dismissal of this case 19.33′; Iéié-34’5.”V”e’H’is mist is that his
mother, brothers and sistere A they wit} not

deny him his Even after the

notice mfaSt”sc-teed “the-.petitioiie1″‘V:in the month of January
2:305 i1a:”=_F’;maz§’§;I’15o’t.tL’]’2t}i’;%th and although he entered

appearance etnA*aav;%£:a:e in FDP on 051392006, he did

got t}j;ii1i{:oi’ft1ing thc.mi3ce1Ianeous petition seeking to set aside

the suit as per the order dated 19. 18.1996.

Th_ii%,’. oileorly demonstrates the callous attitude on the

‘part out’ the. petitioner. Despite the same, he has stated in his

” tltte-It he took Steps. 013.1}? after he came to know about the

-.et.}31.tb:1teaftion 121:1 the newepaper regarding the auction of one of me

” family properties pursuant to the decree obtained by his

.4 smother, brothers afld sisters. The expianation ofiered is totally

We

W’? 10652 /2038

unacceptable for such inardrinatfi delay. Therefere, I d0 not find

any good gr<;»1111d to intexfem with £116: order passed 1332' ti3é"cg311rt

below. Hence, the Writ petition fa.ilS and the same

]" 3udge

KK

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information