IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA_l\§G'r5T!;§f)...f_'{E
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY QE"EEBR:';AT§fi?j'T:;.oi'0f_ V
BEFORE
THE HON'BLEvM.R.JUSTIC.E'-Riix-\/_1 MALIv:v1.,L\.T..}t
WRIT PETITION' IXi.O . ;!.4.T",;V.vO,i_O"F'~v?¥U€3t3..f--GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :3 ~ '
Sfi "
'S/ 0 iate C hTa"nré._.a p pa
Aged about 52 y=:=ja.rs,.
Residingat I Ma,;n',..j~. _ .
Rangegowda Badavane, '..'T'
Behmd Gov€:r_nnTea'Tt Primary
Sc.h.Lj)o!,'~Kottge:>-aiya _
. . . . . ..
. Yeshwa:T.th.p'u.ra,
'Bahgavt:'e.{e»vN@_rtb Tatuk. ...PETIT1ON ER
'{'i3_y VSriv_K'.'$'i;ar;Eva§a, Advocate)
"'..M';P{'Gangappa
Since éeceased by has
" V-*L.R.'s
M4...»
1. Smt. Hanumamma
W/o iate M.P.Gangappa
Aged about 52 years.
2. Smt. G.Ja\/aiakshmé
D/0 late M.P.Gangappa
Aged about 37 years.
3. Smt. G.Parvathi
D/0 Eate M.P.Gangappa
Aged about 31 years.
4. Sri M.G.Dhanaraj
S/o Eate M.P.Ganga_ppa
Aged about 31 yea'_rs~~..g_
5. Sri M.G.Devara} A
S/ 0 "ia"L'e nga gpa A
Aged about.~vV2,3year.sI'~..._ _ '
AH are Resid'&.ng"~at _N'e._.gi'ES',
4"' Cross, MagadiI_Ma.és~é Road,
.A'g'rahara Dasarahaiii,
._"'E3.an_gaEere --":36.Q_._O"79.
' =Sri"v_Cha':1d'appa
Sir;-£e--«.De:C'ea'Sed by his
. A71;
6(al)..Lia1<shxmarnma
Wfo iate Channappa
A Aged about 72 years.
i<.C.Ramakrishna
S/0 late Channappa
Age: Major
Both are residing at 1 Main
Road, Yeshwanthpura Hobti,
Bangalore North Taluk.
6(<:) l<.C.Bhal<thavathsala
S/o late Channappa Deleted as perV.C__0urt~
Agezfvlajor order dated :2l5.6:2'o-o_9 _
Residing at No.210, F' *
"Saraswathi Nliaya",
I Block, Nagarabhavl IE
Stage, BEML Layout,
Bangalore -- 560 072. _
6(d) Jayamma
D/o Eate Channappa
W/0 Gangappa. .
Aged about S2 years
6(e) E<;'C';'?lagr"aea;rfit.ma l l
10/ o_ late .::hVar:na';o,p'a
W/o 4Ga:aga~::)"p.a "
R/ at E\iara'si--r.r1 hvaya-nal'.Pal«yu~a,
Oppgosltoe Beggars 'Colc;=ny,
Mam. Gate, Magad~é,.._l\_./laden Road,
Bafigal"o:re_?'«.S6O 079.
scar; .t'sharadé»nana
D/otate Chanhappa
A_'g'ed«-'about 48 years.
.6(g) .Ga"ngamma
A D/o Channappa
' Aged about 46 years.
D/o late Channappa order dated 25.6.2009.
= ~.--t3(h) Ramadevl } Deieted as per the Court
Aged about 34 years'
ti/6""
All are residing atl Main ] "
Road, Kottigepalya, Cause title ~a--m.e:n.ded
Near P.C.Print, Magadi Main as"be*r the Co.u_rt~ order}
Road, Yeshwanthpura Hobli J d=atedAi?,S.6;i20AO9-
Bangalore North Taluk. V «. '
7. B.S.Gopalakrishna
S/o Msiddalingappa
Aged about 48 years
R/at No.1, 4"' cross,.__
K.P.Extension West __ ;
Bangalore M 560 029..., _ '
8. B.s.suresi}
S/o Sidgdaii'r"i--.ga'-paa V _ _
Aged about..F}"3 years .. " V
R/at li\lio-.32-, H iii? Layout
Kaimai<shipaly.a v _" . '
Ma§ii_ad'i4Road',~_"-i.' __
Bangalore -- 560 " ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sn 7if.Sesii.aAgi’ri”Ra’Vo, Advocate for R1–R5
R6_(aE§<*
" ,.Tthis.VWrit Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order vide Annexure~} at I.A.i\lo.2O passed by the City Civil
_ 'Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.3316/1994 dated l1,11.2008
' in CCHWE1.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:–
Véwi
3. Sri “liseshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents contends that there is no erro”r-that
calls for any interference. He submits that
powers of the Court under Section 151 of
invoked by restoring the suit.’JW’H’e._i=e3ies.AtV:”opoh”ethle.
Judgment in the case of LAXMAN
omens reported in 1LR”‘=~é’OO1 CK–.e,%r:irA”rA’i&:gi{“”i527,V’
particularly on para–.G”..of thietttltidgwrrzent wh’i”ch'”Vreads as
foliowszm
A C’ “‘Thé’:Vl;eari?.ed..Counsel for the appellant Sri
Patilhiad ai’so’rsuhrn~i’tted that this Court is liberal
“in. the matter entertaining such applications
he When_ the eorigiinal matters are dismissed for
_ in the circumstances that the counsel is
* some other Court Hail. That in fact is
the -approach of this Court and on many
” occasions, I myself entertained such applications
it for the purpose of restoration of the original
matters dismissed for default; let apart, as
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
appellant Sri Patil, the learned District Judge
was too technical in the matter of entertaining
re
the appiication before him. In this coiji’te’>{–tg_~
have to observe that there are ,oie’th:oraV’_i=.o’fR
decisions to say that quoting”‘of–wro–‘{§g
of law is not a ground for of
applications and that -.__what”i._rfiattet5″17 it
substance and the prayer.Vih»the ap;7ii’Cetiori’s.
He further conte’ndls_’that.§’o§’i the passing of
the impugneidiorder in the
proceedings ‘hex preciuded from
chaEleii’g’i’r.glltllthbe:i;n*1;,v3i;gtiedV’oard”er~«a’t this stage as he has led
evideticeh’ ».5%:::é’Q.1P§.icatlon and also addressed
ar9il_’heh’tbs~«, = V 2
_ Heard learned counseis.
-.bA«:’*’The Eudgment relied upon by the respondents
..w}i_th reference to para~9 is not a deciaration of law that
be binding. The Judgment rendered was with
sreference to the facts & circumstances of that case and is
devoid of any declaration of taw. The oniy reason
W”
accorded while disposing of the said case was that identicai
applications were entertained and that the iearned District
}ucige was too technical in entertaining the ap’p’:l’i’ca:tVig:on.
Faced with technicality, the rule of Saw ”
When a specific provision of:~ii’a’w–.gis-‘_4′
invocation of the inherent power’.Vot’.,_A’thle :C’o_u’iit._isV
inappropriate. The rule of absolute,lThe.re’fo~rej, the’-it
Saw of the land is to be adhope-reVcl”g~–to”–»i.n a ‘rn’an,ne.r’§that it is
prornulgated. If the pxr’ovis~ioi1.s§of the’:i_ia’w–are to be given a
go«by.e ontitie;s.olVe.pfoot’i*n_g that the Court has an inherent
power ‘under Section CPC, would render the entire
Coof_e”o_f Civii-» Fflrocedlytirel as redundant. Certainly, that is
ijntentionmof granting an inherent power under
._se1ct*io-.%{‘r_,,S:.”p.r–?~ci>c. Therefore, to take a View that it is too
te’c.hni,g:’ai~,to disrniss when a wrong provision of law has
peen “gtioted wouid be incorrect. Therefore, I’am unable
-accept to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in
—-the said Judgment. Hence the appiication is not
maintainable.
G?!”
-9-
6. The second contention urged is that .ia’fte’r._it’he
impugned order has been passed the
participated in the proceedingsand5″died-.’;Vey’i*d.énce,,V
Therefore, he cannot be atlowed td.gchiaiienge.t’he:–‘sarnVe~;.’ii.i
7. Sri Seshagiri Rao–,.,:ie,arneVd V..coL:,nS_ei”‘~–ia’p’p’e’a ring
for the respondents:–*.praysr””ior_:’–time to””pro”dLice the
documents to evidence the prayer sought is
declined in v_i.eW:,:of thie thatf”t_-h_eistzatements made by
the iea’rined,.,:§;:oun’s:eE f”or”*the p’evt~it’ioner is accepted. It is
undispL_ted_ that ‘pet’i-tioner wouid have participated in
the procee’d.Ein’gsVa_nd~.,_th’erefore to place the documents in
re,-j_p’eC,t.,,..of,,_ his “contentions is whoiiy unnecessary. The
inj’;:mg”n,ed,,”o:rder has been passed on 11-11-2008, the
ip-re’sent.i.i’5ejtition has been fiied on 19-11-2008, that is
within Vita; period of 8 days from the date of passing of the
A indp’i_igned order. The Petitions are to be considered as on
the date of filing and not on the date when the Petition is
taken up for hearing. The Petition therefore is to be
considered as on 11-11-2008 being considered today
Y4”
…..:§_O…….
wouid nodoubt have to consider subsequent
The subsequent events and the reiief sougght» ‘is.:ai.way’s -,
referrabie to the date on which the préanintéiif.
Court and not the date or.’w__hichV”t.he
challenged. Therefore, the co:n’t.e:ntiVVon of’ respondents
that the petitioner has’-~..p};rtiicrtjpawted’~i.riL»»,,p”roceedinois after the
impugned order. is pa.ssed~. interference is
caiied for ”
for.’ reasons, the order dated
1141-zuoia pas’sea% by the learned City Civii
Judge”, r.Banoa’iore”En xO.S:.i\io.3316/1994 by is set aside.
respondents are at liberty to make such appropriate
._app§icavtio.n_ rnjte’rms of iaw to redress their grievance.
~~ Viiiule made absotute.
Rsi</-