High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt.Lakshmamma vs Sri.S.Gajendra Reddy on 6 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt.Lakshmamma vs Sri.S.Gajendra Reddy on 6 August, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HiG}~§ caum up KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ.R'E*'_,L ._V_
yawn THES THE W DAY OF' AUGUST, 2999- I  " 

EEFORE

THE HC}N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHVOAK 3; 311330-H1€3{E;§1, L"'V" T_ 

WRYI' PETITION No, 27393 09 iGM§C;i?C}'' * VA 1.

BETWEEN;

1.

SMTLAKSHMAMMA
AGE 30 YEARS a
we (3.13 PAPA REDDY L ”

SR1 12. JAYARAM;’1’R_EDIf:Y”‘*:1′;
AGE 57 YEARS: % g
S10 LATE C;,P.’–..§fis£EA;_REI,:I}Y_

312; P. ¢JANARDEi–N£§ 7RE;3’1V::¥)’:’. %§ .

AGE; 53*-YEARS _ _
S/C) LATE _c}’;p_. pAPA..REaQ¥*« ”

SRIB. .mA:;:sn RE§DY°’ ”

a.<3E :;30 §–'EARS' u _

'~ 3/ c;'V}%1:;..;e;;jE (Luz PAPKREDDY
331.57». PiZABAI§}Xi?_ REDDY

;%\<:;§:e -=$8vvYEA'R$'-..–v'' {
Sm %m;rr::: t.'"}.}7'.fPA¥'A REDDY

L' SRi,'.4F:LAI§S}§fB4iNARAYANA REDS?
AGE 49' YEARS
* :i3».{_.:ATE G11 PAPA REDDY

AMSA
, "flags 45 YEARS ,
T H ~ was LATE 63,13'. PAPA REBDY

8. SMT. P. LALITHA
AGE 43 YEARS
S] O LATE Cr.P. PAPA REDDY

9. Sm: P. KQMALA
AGE 35 YEARS 2
S/Q LATE (3.13. ?APA REBDY

101 SM? P. VINUTHA
AGE 29 YEARS ‘
SIC) LATE GP. PAPA REDDY ‘

3. T0 10 ARE Rgsrzprnem . _
CHIKKABANASAWADI WLLA(sE;” : ” ”
WARD No.84, B.E..M.P., *” . ”
mnDABANAsAw.A;31 POST, ..
BANGALORE_E§.6G 943. . 2 k

parmongrzs
” ‘(B¥.;~’::RI isi£%iA324:A§s1:1»1AN*:§}~3′;s.1;AH, ADVOCATE)

3. SR1 S.GAJEN4DfEA R.EtE3D’;Y.
AGE 45 YEARS.’ =
_ s; 0, P. %AsHANKAR51é:ézs REDDY

SK; {) §i*Ai%.:§VE_NDRA REDDY
Aasg 32:: _YE_ARS._
5,-at) .{:;«.p; s’:~:Am«;aRApPA mum

‘:3. ‘ $R1’t:m3}’s:=iooMA REDDY

‘AGE 3’3?’ YEARS

” ” ” ‘ = 3; 0 §:;«.,P; “SHANKARAPPA REIIJDY

. ‘s:.m;% SHNA KUMAR REDDY

‘ AGE 32 YEARS

3,50 £5.13. SHANKARAPPA REDS’?

ITO 4 ARE RIAT O M B R LAYOUT
3RD MAR’? ROAD CHIKKABANASAWADI
VILLAGE, WARD NO 84, B.B.M.P
BANGALORE

5. SM’}’. LAKSHMAMMA
AGE 70 YEARS , T.

W/C} LATE P. KRISHNA REDI’;iY”-..

RfAT 0 M B R LAYOUT, 3RD

ROAD CHiKKABANASAWADI

VILLAGE, WARD NO 34.; _:3.B.M”.’P =

BANGALO RE

5. Sm’ RATHNAMMA ‘
AGE so YEARS V

13/9 LATE P. i%fi12I.’3T§ir~EA. i§’EE}If5Y
{VAT 0 M E ‘R Lavam, 3V:?_.D’~~MfiIN’V.v A

ROAD cH1Ki<ABA.\IAsAWAD}i .. "

v1LLAGE,~w%ARD 84;\.Es';B.M'.?~V~«

mNG~A;.<3RE *~

3. SMT. MUN}THAYAMMA.

AGE 55 YEARS.’ ‘
W/O LATE KP. ‘KRISHNA REDDY

R/ATEGARDEN S1-‘.REE’I; RAMA
‘ MURTH'{-NKGAR
I3AF§A{3u§;L{}RE”~-,

AGE 5:5 Y_r3A:i::3″ .

_ 1) [G–L1’¥i’E i>;”KR1smzA R8139′!
R/AT {}AI{‘j}I)EN STREET, RAMA

‘T 3 ‘ — -. _M.uVRTHYV–*NAGAR
~~.fE}25NA{}ALORE

9, ‘- sm: MJAYAMMA

jj .A_.(3E 53 YEARS
we LATE P. KRISHNA REBJDY

11.

R/AT LAZZA FOOD CORNER
333 CROSS, DASAPPA LAYOUT
RAMA MURTHY NAGAR,
BANAGALORE

SMT. GEETHA
AGE 35 mans

w/0 CEHANNE GOWIIDA .

R]A’I’ LAZZA moo CORNER

3% CROSS, DASAPPA LAYOUT.” _

RAMA MURTHY NAGAR,
BANAGALORE ‘ ._

SR1 P. K03:,>AN1:>A RAMA 1ff#’ED/D’£%%_’

AGE ’78 YEARS

3/0 LATE pawl; ‘Plfiifi ‘V A

R/AT cHIKKat3ANiA$AW,ap:-


BANAGALORE  

smmicaaa    
AGE 42'r.YEARS  "    %

3/0 P. KGDANDAV R.§£.1A’–REB9Y
R/AT CHIKKABANA_SAW:A}Z)}%
BANAGALORE ‘

SR1’-‘Gfil’P;,S:PIANKAl§APPAV REDDY

AG-E T/’S YEARS.

T310 LA’1*s; }>A*r3§’;L– .G.PII.,1,A REDDY

‘s2;A”_1’f %cH:i<:;{AB,Ai<rAsAwAB1
VILLAGE, WARD NC) .34 B.B.M.P,

j 0 MB R.-_jI;AYiZ1U'§', BANAGALGRE

RESPONSENTS

V. (B'ir"-SRINQN. MANJUNATH FOR <::;R1-4, ADVGCATES)

~ Iii '*mIS"wRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
QFFTHE CQNSI'i'I'UTION 012' INDIA PIRAYENG TQ QUASH THE

7:2:??f

'°*wv.,'1A;t§;§312;x~A ORDER [rm 22.4.99 passes IN I.A.NO.XIi IN

C).S,NO.2707/ 1998 ON THE FILE QF THE LEARNETb '»T 1ST
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, EANGALORE CITY
FURTHER ¥'ROCEEDiNGS IN THE SUIT TELL THE 9I~S?G5fli§ .0157

THE SEVERAL RFAS PENDING ADJUDIGATION

HOIWBLE HIGH CQURT AND ETC.

'I'HiS WRIT PETITIQN COMING cm' ii'0R«PR–«I_,

I DAY. THE COURT MAKE} THE FOLLOWIVP-IG:::"'T ..

0 R "E3. %
The petitiuxaers have raised Q13 order,
dt.22.04.2()D8 [Annexure~i{}_._},§:a$s%fic§d (if fihe I Add}.
City Civil & sessions J§1dge.%,j I.A.NQ.XII in

(lS.No.:270'?/1998:». %

3. Th§:v–.;;-gs’p9nv§:i&.éx£ii’:1\ié$’,*3;: : 4 filed this suit against the
16 dtzfendantsr petitionars herein (defendant
¥:::1§_ *7};»_ separate possession, pennanent

the said $uit proeecdings, the p€tiTi(}I1f3I’S

‘»__:€,.Ied Stectien 10 Qf than Code of Civil Prucedure

. _Tj’_:sg€:g::i<;17:1g sta:; t3"f the pm::t:,3<:1iI1gs till ti'Il3: disposal s.

1002/2003, 1010/2003, 1021/2003 and

VkijL:9%4f0/2003. These appealgfiéamse fmm C),S.No.1178/2002

filed by one Rajappa against 7 parties

p0SSE}SSiQI1, etc. C).S.Ncz.11′?8/1982 was

21.02.2003. As the panics to tmttgaga «.afppe’a1é§:

parties to O.S.No.2′?0’?/ 1993 diiTet*t::;t,=.t}1e

its order, dt.22.()4.2008 dis:niss@cfi”t’I..VV;§..3\1o.X§i;..

3. Feeling aggievad ‘tiff the petition is

fled by defendant NQ3_,__1 t(}’?’.” ‘ t

4. Sr: counsel appearzing
for the parties to the two
pI’GCCfidiI1gSEA’E’.Jl’l’.§ %’~ the sense that the present
plaintiffs ‘{r¢$pt$f;d.§:1§t to 4 herein) claim -under
éC§.i5.At’:ha131tarappa Raddy. He therefore:

prafks:t’@1f t11:§E34.=;ttti”;g~:”asid:3 of ths Qrder an I.A.XII and far the

ttay cf t:E”;.e pmcaaduxgs in €).S.N::>.27{)7/1998 an the disposal.

‘ ?t31’ cxmtm, Smt Prafibha, the learned caunsel for ‘£116:

‘V VJL”–v.rgé$rp:511dent Neal to 4 submits that the parfies 11:} the tvm

pmcaedings are entzimiy tiiiferant. It is her

gzetitigmers have been filing one afif:r”‘i;}~1e ‘

(31133? to protract the practaedixggs. 1. the”

years, ths defendants have not V.coming.fGna_},arE3v} téV’cr0ss- V

axmnme the plajntifis’ wi1:m3$ses,.<""' – V

6. In the couzfse
submits that thg in the Trial
(301111 by the far the other
defendantsigangvi Nos. 1 to 7 and that the
adjeunmenié them in ceflusion with ‘£133

respundejgt ”p1a§n1§fi’3 ‘ V ‘ V”

‘i?.’:. ‘:’§43;;’:i;§T11;’i<:i'€3f the Code 91' Civil Procedure states that

with the trial on any suit in which.

~n_;1atte1" it1':¥:ss1:e is also dirextttly or siibstantiaily in issue in

'fa insfituted suit, The intentmrmt behind this

V' fi:..':g'jé1a1};;§*£:'e provision is to amid the passing sf the conflictjng

':"'j1_;§i§:;1nc11ts. In thc: instant case, it is not in dispute that

581%.

Q.S.N0.1Z78/1982 is disposed of Evfifi before I.’A_._};{II”

be made in o.s.No,27:::7/1993. Fmiljxgr it is”:1eff_izfi”‘%ii$puj:}:”=

that this Court is 1101: persuaded to: icgf

stay in the pending R.F’.A.s.

8. My perusal ef flag ca,uS'<; A' 'the in

0.s.Ne:2?o7/1993 and o.S§Ng. that the
parties are at all thsse
aspects of tha be held ta be at
fault for nqzsta}§§:;%g% decline ta interfere in
thti mattfirx No artist as to Costs.

Sd/1
Judge