IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE :3" DAY OF JULY 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUgT1TC.E~'..'U.jf
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE gS.AeH'A'HT.T
WRIT APPEAL NUMBER 2._2;?_S/2f§'G.9"'('f3M~C§${Eu) 1 "
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Padma Ramachandraiibpa,
Aged about 49 years, ' '
W/0. Dr. G. Ramachgandrappaa A
2. Miss. Swetha RarhaC'§3Ua'ndrapba;"
Aged about 25.yé'a._rs9,.._...';'. " "
Daughter of Di", G:;_ F§am'ach_an'fira'ppa. '
3. Sri. Hrushvikeshi'Ramac'han.d'ra_ppa,-
Aged about 27.Z'\«'ea'r'§}'-~.,UV% t '
S/o. Dr. G. 'Ramachahd.raD'pa__."V
All are residing at 13,, Hu:'Tte'r-s Close,
Oxfod, Oxté 2'PX, Uni't--ed__Kin,gdom,
A-'1 aie re"p.res?ente*d'by their"
Power Q1' Atto.rr1€V«..HoI_der,
Sri. _ Ra g ha»--ye"ridr_a
Son of Sr:'.--.VTVenkarteSgha Gowda,
v.V"Aged about 25,ye"a;:As, residing at
4l_No.40, Narijappa Layout,
~ -«§fVe!«.aChenna Ha;i§~i,
, .Ka'naka"pura Main Road,
'*--Ma§n"RG-ad,",.' '
V."v..ean.gaI'cyre~'560 062. .. APPELLANTS
A .,Ugg(B§{sAr:"s. Sudhindranath - Adv. for Appfts.)
ET; '
gg)M,,,,
AND
1. Dr. G. Ramachandrappa,
Son of Govindappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Survey No.174,
Kodathi Viiiage, Varthur Hobii,
Sarjapura Road,
Bangaiore South Taiuk
(Now Bangaiore East)
2. Sri Murali Puttabarthi,
Son of Ashwathanarayana,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.14304,
C. Brigade Lane, Sandiego,
C.A.92128, U.S.A.,
Represented by Power of Attoi'raey_fE'»
Holder Sri. K. Venkataraman_a7'ppa,__ :,
Aged about 72 yea:fs,.._Sonfof iate _
K. Munivenkatappa,",:i?.esid'i--ng€at" ,
No.639, 4"' Cross",._}<1:~.ra--rriar§g_aia_,
III Biock, aangaio::_re;--_560 03'4;- ,_ ' .. RESPONDENTS
This _is::’3.tiied7u_’nder-éection 4 of the Karnataka
High Court “-Act ‘pray!n’g4ito’i’–ise’t aside the order passed in
W.P.No.15867/2.009 dateci,’i£5t0___Es’;2’OO9.
This Writ Aiopeai-eonfi’ing”‘..up for orders on this day, the
Court deii..’«.iered~ the fo’ii–oyy_i__n_g,:
i”f}JuDGMeNT
.-iiciiiiejisixi/iinered by PD. Dinakaran C.}.,)
~-i«i..fjV»-g___”~».Aggrie\/ed by the order dated 15.06.2009 made in
if44:W;-P,’i*si’0;~1,S8’67/2009, wherein, the iearned Singie Judge has
of the Writ Petition, observing that in view of the
°i.._,'”dir.e.Ction issued by this Court on an eariier occasion on
11.1.2008, a direction has to be issued to the trial Court to
dispose of the suit within a time frame and that no prejudice wiii
be caused to the other side etc., with a direction to the”»t’riai
Court to dispose of O.S.No.7278/2004 as exped~it-i.o_us__I’_3r’if
possibie, within the time frame of six months.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, re’spon’den”ts
have come up with this Writ Appeai_conte-nd”i*ng thgait’.i.th’e i’lea*rn”edV’*a’
Singie Judge has disposed of the W’i’itV:..V’Petition~.tN’i’th.outKnotice to
them; that the impugned or:d~e«_r them
and as such, there is violation’ natural justice
and the relief grante’di~Lb’y is barred by the
principies of Res .’ ‘ ‘
3. for the appeiiants and
perused the ‘ V I i if
4. Learnedcou:nse!.v”for’-theappellants submits that the first
is.._iAzorV1<éiVn'g"éVin United Kingdom wouid require
som'et;imeuto- from her job and get the flight tickets
come to Indiaiitoiiingtve evidence in O.S.No.7278/2004 and the
'i-i«i'fojEvre_c'tion to dispose of the said suit within a period of six months
serious hardship to the appeiiants as the triai Court
proceed in a great hurry because of time frame, resuiting in
and hurried proceedings.
4
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants, except giving liberty to the appellants to
move the learned single Judge for extension of time, if so’
required, we do not find any ground to interfere with the ord_er”‘o:fi’,V”~
the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. _.«,
% jlidogse
IiTicl¥ex_: Yves/’l\E,o., A. ””
Web’ ” ‘ “_’_.