IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE ?'rH DAY OF' JULY, 2993f ~ ";,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'1'1C12f'RAv1 é
WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION No.35o7 omnoa tdmgctm
BEITWEEN :
1
SR} A. N". RAJAGQPAL 312.1% A. NAR1 \Yz%$NAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69¥EAz2s%M. . " "
R/AT NO. 1186 /M,T41H '§' -;Bi;O'CI{
JAYANAGAR, BAEGALGRE-5.60'
SR1 A. S. SE'1'l'Y'
S/OQSRI, A; _S'LIl5--pE3}§.IAH SETTY
_AGED*.'1.BO1JT 52 YEARS
. R/'AT A-6',~.'.'GURUPRIYA APARTMEN'I'S"
* v1 CROSS, v MAIN, CHAMARAJPET
f * » BANGALORE-560 O18
M gB%"gz.s;~i%: $@f;V":B¥.,Z=.S i;iIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
% .V ANI3: %
. .. PEFFFIONERS
siezi H. MUNIRAJU s/0 LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
, _ "}AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO. 254, TALAGHATTAPURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALROE--560 062
:\y
2 SR1 H. GOPAL S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABGUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO. 254, TALAGHATTAPURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALROE-560 062.
3 SRI H. HUCHAPPA S/O LATE K
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS _ A
R/AT NO. 2s4,TALAGHA'1€TAPUR,Aq v
KANAKAPURA ROAD '
BANGALROE-560 062 O ' O
4 SR1 HRAMAIAH S/O LATE' HANUMABFFHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS _
R/AT NO. 254, 'TA£..AGHATTAPI,3'RA
KANAKAPURA '
BANGALROE-5601362 O
%%%% " RESPONDENTS
TH:s.wR1i* IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
225 227 UFf’1″HE CONSTYFUTION OF mom PRAYING
B11230? PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
“”‘*(sENIO.$§.D_”n(ISION), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
‘I€3A:’~I(}ALORE,’ fro DISPOSE OF THE MA.NO.2/O8 ON
‘BASIS THE RECORDS ALREADY PRODUCED
ALCSNG W’i’j}’H THE APPEALS BEFORE IT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO SECURE THE RECORDS AND
mSPOs;2s: OF THE APPEALS {N TERMS OF’ THE RATIO
, 0F’__THE RULINOAOF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
‘ :15: ‘THE CASE OF VENKATASUBBA NAIDU
“vS;OHELLAPPA REPORTED IN AIR 2000 so 3032.
THIS WRIT PFJTTTION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING}:-
/5″
ORBER
The petitioners seeks for a writ of mandarggiise
direct the Court below to dispose of M.A.No. ”
terms of the decision rendered thee .%;;as¢e for AA
VENKATASUBBJLAH NAIDU V51: ‘
OTHERS reported in AIR 2000 so H
2. The petitioners» contend . jiihatgjji’ of the
;quite some time
back, the .’has;V:. orders thereon and
the said eNo.2;”2oc$”~~%és still pending. That:
co’fiee(;uefiifl3r;:ti1e’Ieewniients herein are taking undue
advaotage’ o:i”«::j.ofi’-eogasideration of the appeal which is
undue hardship to the petitioners.
ff.-‘Hon’bie Supreme Court in the wee of
“2S;f€.fi;NIiATAsUBB1AH NAIDU v. S.CHE’LLAPPAN &
reported in AIR 2000 so 3032 has held at
Vparagaphs 15, 16, 17 8:. 18 as follows:
a£A'”””
“15. The Ruie does not say that the _
the injunction order should be by”ihef_~v ‘ _
com to thirty days at the firs! e e. ‘
Court should pass final order on – ‘~ V’
days from the day on
granted. Hence, the order
become iltegai nwreiy. ” » has not
restricted to at of
16. Nonethe£e.e.§g1.’;1:¢;3–. ‘re the
of the Court
failing ‘ac; ‘pas.-3 ‘ e,rcz;ers within thirty
days as emoined
casts a three-pronged
the party against whom the
order was passed. First is
the’.”2egc1:l.o.’fJiga1ion that the Court shall make
endeavour to finally dispose of the
of injunction within the period of
” tizivty days. Second is, the legal obligation that
for any valid reasons the Court could not
” ” finally dispose of the application within the
xe/”LW
aforesaid time the Count has to record the
reasons thereof in
18. What would happen gm Court does not 3}
either of the courses .7′ We have to bear t _
that in such a case the Court hctve’ _ Mt
passed the three protective «. ” TA
Legislature has provided ‘fQf..the
person against whom the
without aflbrding “an We a
say in the matter. is
obliged to gm; h_im the
order, offa very exceptional
oontirtgenrcy is empowered to by~
measure. Second is
“4:2b.ligcation cast on the Court to
_ ortiers on the application within the
. days. Here also it is only in
very cases that the Court can by-
passveatch a rule in which cases the Legislature
_ t A’ mactndtztes on the Court to have adequate
_ ‘fr’ez;tsons for such by-passing and to rmrd
. __;§those reasons in writing. {fthm hump is also
by-passed by the Court it is dyfficult to hold
5;
that the party qifected by the order should .
necessarity be the sole sufferer’. ‘ ”
In View of the ruling of the Hon’ble *
it is needless to mention that the Court V
into consideration the said _
Miscellaneous Appeal as expedifiiouehféis 1
The Writ Petition