Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka High Court
Ninganagouda S/O : Budanagouda … vs Mallanagouda S/O : Bhimanagouda … on 29 January, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
] WP.6O I 34/20! 0 (GM-CPC)






W.P. No.6O13V<=l'/'--;".2"(3-10 (cmmcg  k
Between: a V' A V

Ninganagouda, - V  1 
S/0 Budanagouda Pa'ti'l,--  "  . 
Aged 73 ye_;:~.r::«;, Oce:*_Ag1"ieu1tu;*e-Q"'u.__...f

R/0. Huggin.a1<:fere,'v
Taiuk: Ka1ag;atag1';-- » ' '

Aiavatti, S'apt€{p},1Vr,   "

Dharwacr =  .. PETITIONER


A§1LD;..I _


_ Bhimanagouda Goudar,
” ~.A~ged §33v”years, Occ: Agriculture.
R/ Byrapur, Taluk: Savanur.


.. Shivaraagouda,

S / 0 Puttanagouda Goudar,
Aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture.

R/ 0. Byrapur, Taiuk: Savanur.
Dist: Haveri.

2 WP.60E34/2010 (GM–CPC)

3. Basavanteppa,
S / 0 Hanumanthappa Kuri,
Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture.
R/0. Byrapur, Talukz Savanur.
Dist: Haveri.

4. B.C. Patil,
S/0 Bhimanagouda, A
S / 0 Charmabasa Gouda’}?ati’1,’
Aged 48 years, Ocei Advoeiatei’.
R / 0. Hiremath Bui1d.iiig,
Byrapur Chowk, 0 ” F
Hubli, Dharwad Dist)’ * RESPONDENTS

This writ petition isfiled…3i’11der1’_tArtic1es 226 86
227 of the C.9nstitt1t*i’o»r2::’of ‘iridia, ‘praying to quash the
order Qn”, “_’I.A.§N0.:;iX.~’ “«.d’at’ed_____7 10.12.2009 in
O.S.N0.2.I”-,/20003 file the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),
Haveri, 5vide” Afinextirij ajnclietc.

on for preliminary

hea;1fing’thtiSV’t’iay;ith’e_C’eui”t made the following-

“This v.WI”i§__p_€ftiition by defendant No.1 is directed

interlocutory order dated 10.12.2009

(‘i”-“iii”1r1.Ve;:t5§’1jije.¥1’0r) dismissing his application — I.A.9 filed

” yvritten statement.

tintiéi; bidet 6 Rule 17 of cpc for ameridmerlt of his


WP.60l34/2010 (GM–CPC)


2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and perused the impugned -«or-dp’ori”*.VAat

Annexure–G. The learned Counsel for

in support of the writ petition reliepd on it

the I-ion’ble Supreme

BUILDERS 86 oexfeiiiopieeso M/Sill

NARAYANASWAM’;’.§z, S(}N”S*. (2009 ‘Si/KR (Civil)
1066). The the effect that
the suit a compromise
deoreef it the compromise
cieeree and void. The trial
collirtulloni the matter, has held that

such ali”coiritentio’n has already been taken in the

i _ iwriftiienistatemeritlfiled by the petitioner. It is relevant

if reasoning of the trial court at para–7 of

“the imphigned order:

“7. Points No.1 & 2: I have carefully gone
through the written statement of the I85
defendant filed in this suit. In para No. 10 as
pointed out by the plaintiff in his objection
has specifically contended that the decree

i . -‘
2, g /
‘=7: ;


4 WP.60i34/2010 (GM~CPC)

passed in Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by
objection and suit in this fashion. He also
has specifically pleaded that this Coiirt
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit to**declar€-7_._”

the order passed in Lok Adalat as”nul.ll’and_”* ”

void. Therefore, I am of the opin.io_r_tV~.that the
plaintiff has already tak’en..suc_4h pleahini his
written statement though he has .not–.quoVted,.vf
the specific provision U/V2;-3._Rule L-3′{Aj~ of.CI?C..V
The said provision’ can be,_urged”;by.the 13?
defendant at the time “of disposalojf this case.
The 181 defendant is atliberty to approach the
same before =the caumte frarne issues” in this
regard if it–_ :..”iotl_ by this Court.
Therefore, I am of the..,_”opinion that the
proposed ameridn’ient.,in_ muggy is necessary
for proper adjudication”Qf..this suit in view of
the factffthatvplai-rityjf«-has already pleaded his”as proposed in ‘1’.A.No. 9. Therefore,

anfswt::r_ po.int__no’.1.__as5in the ‘negative and

if paiss»the7foliouat§l1g.”‘ .

l ‘I the matter in the iight of

the fpriiicipiershviiaid «down by the Supreme Court in

r _ itits’uF§i*An,_eV RAMS RAM CHANDER RAI (AIR 2003 SC

to exercise of jurisdiction under

“‘Arti.§3Iesi«:””226 8:: 227 of the Constitution of India

A. ,_pertaining to interlocutory orders passed by Courts

i”‘s1::1bordinate to the High Court. In my opinion, the

impugned order does not suffer from any error of

\ ta ./
K’ Hr’


5 WP.60I34/20!!) (GM~CPC)

jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record

or gross failure of justice to warrant in?err’férer1ce

under the extraordinary jurisdiction

under Articles 226 85 227 of sue’ Cons1;itL:1fion_of’India..

The writ petition is accordingljf.dis:jnisse.¢i–, ~ ‘~ n K


Petition dismissed. 9

Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

9 queries in 0.536 seconds.