Ba;n"g.a!EQ§'e__- 56'O'0.0.9.:.v
.._1__
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAVLQZRE
DATED THIS THE 18" DAY OF JANUARY
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE; RAVI M_7ALIiV1Ti\Tl§i""w
WRIT PETITION NO.9963 OF 2Qof8('<3M%_C»PC).V»..__ @__E j
BETWEEN:
Smt. Bharathi Prem,
W/O iate R.Prem,
Aged abOui:_5y5 years,
DOing1._BusineS'5 a't'SVhOp"~.__
Nos.56.&'*56/1," '
M.C.No;2,,3/5A7,' = _
Aiankar Pear! P|aza,7._'
Kempe Gowda 'Road, V'
...PETITIONER
' (;.lV3y-ASr»i.__C~.R;C§'0palaswamy, Advocate)
TNT);
1. 4'M/s:".T.VA.lVaxnkar Associates
x T No.9/"1, Kumar Krupa Road,
"fiangaiore -~ 560 001.
Represented by its Main Partner,
Sri "faliam Nanjunda Shetty.
Sri Sanjay Prem
S/O Prem H.Kathri
O//»<--
Vtsrfit. Krupa
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.44, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore -- 560 001.
3. Sri Prem H.Kathari
S/o Hiranand Kathri,
Aged about 48 years, V '
R/at No.44, Cubbon Road_,_"a.V_
Bangaiore --~ 560 001. %
4. SriK.C.Desai 4_ «. .
S/0 C.Chima!ai Des'ai,.r '
Trustee, V A .V *
Sri Jayanthitavl. _Tha'kore'~Trust._{-.V_
R/at No.7, Fiace Course' Ro'ad_,*--
Banga-iorE««..%1'*S6*;O
5. S!'T1t';~C'fiET.I;tdt':E$:}.*ath:i': fl
Aged aboi;t_5S.Vyea%rs,VV__ _ -
6. Sr§'S__uh'rI .. --
S/o Charirirax/_ath_i"
; Aged about 35 years.
D/_o'~Cyha"rid_ravathi,
. Aged.' 'abfou.t 30 years,
Respondents No.5 to 7 are
Resum:-g at No.74/A, era,
Aostin Town Layout,
Neeiasandra,
A or Bangalore — 560 0-48. ..,RESPONDENTS
Sr: E).H.Mokasha, Advocate for R1 to 4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articies 22ej’8=.:i22’2_or
the Constitution of India praying to quash Ann*e-x.uref’B’ the
impugned order dated 20.6.2008 passed i:iy,t’he )_<1v."Adt:ii.';
City cm: Judge, Bangalore (CCH 28) in O_..S,No..V5O.i1/199'3.V'
and thereby order to r.e-st.ore theflyy suitjy. "in '
O.S.No.5011/1993. i * " " '– = '
This Writ Petition coming oniioir"-ordersothyiisday,tithe?'
court made the f0H0wing:– L
ORD r.R'
5 r1
The suit of petitiion'et_f'pyi"a«i.n_tiff came to be
dismissed for__non–p.ro,s_eCutioh order dated
28-6-2008. théée'-prese'nt Petition.
2; i._gSri C.'R.G'oi3ai'a-sgwamy, learned counsei appearing
for4;the,petitio,n_er' contends that any reiated proceedings
"of the very same suit, the Court in Writ Petition
had granted an interim order of stay of aii
fu"rthei_j"proteedings. The said order was extended from
..tiVr~;_ie to "time. By the order dated 1241-2007, the interim
' was extended tiii the next date of hearing. The next
" -"date of hearing was 26-8-2008. The impugned order
9614'"
..4…
dismissing the suit for non–prosecution was p’asS’ed~»._on
20-6-2008 namely, the date on which metélqte’r’:§es;’eerttert
was in existence. Hence, he contend_s that”th’e’.’ord”er’_’couiudé
not have been passed in v;i’ew1’_A_’o~f stay’:lfurtliiler
proceedings. _
3. Sri D.H.Mol<ashl, ieatned c0unsei"'app§eanng for
the contesting respo'n:d'e..nts.'_'A1 toVl"4.._V_co'r:t,ends the order
dated 12-11-2007 speaVl§lsV_of.»'Vthe i–n'tetlé3frj;V.._order granted till
the n.ext_dAate'._-ofanhear'-E.ng~«..and that the matter be caiied next
week. " .__l-le_, th.etefor:_e;«.__':Lco"ntends that the interim order
wogmid expire.,not"on the next day, but by next week as per
the or'tler:'ldated 112311-2007.
-ilam unable to accept the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the respondents in as much as the
1 g_Vln–te’Arim order of stay operates till the next date of hearing.
.–The next day would mean the next date on which the
matter is taken up for consideration and not on the next
\%..-»’
date calied for whether it has been caiied orr.~not_«;V»’:’__’_i’nj’ ‘tire
instant case, the matter having been….ta–E<e'nA.i.:'*Lip
consideration only on 2-6-2008 the intiejriina aii
further proceedings was thereforew/'aiid t.he«'cia}te7ong
which the impugned order ividiexntissinij'~th'e'V'su.it for non-
prosecution would aris_e".«.
For v..afor’_eVSaid:::: ‘the order dated
20-6-2oo8″basée§_ing:3a,Nb,§o1;/1993 by the iearned
Additionai.’:Ci5ty.;C3§i3\:ii B-a.ng§aEore,is hereby set aside.
to file.
* \/.\!rit.VP’etitio’n disposed off.
Sd/W
JUDGE
Rsk/–