W.P.NO.4666/2010
3N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 47'" DAY OF MARCH 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTECE K. BI{AKTHAVATS__1fi1;A A'
WRIT PETETEON No.-4666/2010 (GM--cpcJ _j ' F"
BETWEEN: " 1' ' '
Sri.K.Muniraju
S / 0 Late Kenchappa
Aged about 50 years
R/ at No.432
Shivashankara Blcok
Hebbal * * --e } .A %
Banga1ore--560 024. '- _ i " V .»,:;~..PE'l'I'I'IONER
(By Sri. C.M.Desa1' and'S§i;Z' ANi.nd{
Chikkotéipp'a. V .
Since deadebyhis 'L1-2"s.A' . '
1. V sn.c4.Mun:krishna"'
' V' / 0- '1__a}te flhikkotappa -------- --« "
, Aged abdqt 50.years
'NO'? 1 1~7_,J-Qt'hi1'1iAla3ra
ChO1ana3'éi1:ar;2.ih2{11i
Banga1orew55_o.032.
Smt. V'er ik_atéunma
V ' = V VD,/Q Late-.-- 'Chikkotappa
_ 2'\ged'--about 62 years
' . Wfc Late Muniyappa
__ ' R,{at.Cho1anayakanaha11i
...R.T.Nagar Post.
Banga10re--56O O32.
W.P.NO.4666/201.0
3. Suit. Seetharnma
W / 0 Venkataramanappa
Aged about 52 years
R/ at. Nadavathi Village
Kadugodi Post
Bangalore.
4. Suit. Rajarnma
W/ o Muniyappa I
D/0 Late Chikkotappa
Aged about 45 years
R/ at. Booclhangere Village
Chanarayapatna Hobli
Bangalore Rural District.
5. Smt. Munirathnamma
W/o Krishnappa
D / 0 Late Chikkotappa
Aged about 4-5 years." _ :[ --~~ « --
R/ at Ch01anaj;3i<aIibfl_eha11i\'i}l'a_=ge T .
.R.'1'.i\Iagar Post. ,- A
Bangalore_.e:32L"~.__" 'i:,;___ V' ,
6. Smt.G21171gE1n1II1a"f''*-.y 4' 0
W/0 Late'--Chikkot.ap'pia 0' ~
Aged a'D0ut'8¢0iyears 0
No. 1 17,. _Jothi1iilaya_
R§T.N.2_iga1'r.Post A.
' ''~Bangaiore:~5-3O O32." """ ...RESPONDENTS
is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
.v 'Constitution of Indi,a,e" praying to quash the order dated 23.07.2008
passed on lA~I'fui2der Section 151 of CPC., seeking permission to file
defense of the petitioner in OS.No.6807/1995 on the file of the
I Ciiy'~--Cixtil;Judge, (CCH--25} at Bangalore under Annexure-E by issue
{of Ce~r_tiorari..p
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
Court made the following:--
W.P.NO.4666/2010
ORDER
The petitioner/ Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6807/ 1995 file
of City Civil Judge at Bangalore city, is before this for
quashing the Order dated 23.07.2008 passed on I.A.l\hlop.:1’J._& 1′
Section 151 of CPC seeking permission ito ;adgditio.n:a–l_u
(”1
statement in the suit at Annexure ‘E.’_a_nd direct.. the Ciftjflpfcirfflf
to receive the same.
2. The brief facts of the leadir1gu”i{g»l filing of the writ
petition may be stated a.sunder:”‘ — V
The plaintiffs S.’l’~1o;6807/ 1995 against the
present petitionerv declaration that the plaintiff is the
owner of the direct the defendants to deliver
vacant possession of the vsuit*-sfchedule property. The Defendant No.1
en:’te’r–e.d appearanc.e in th’ev—-~s–uit through his advocate. He did not file
on 23.07 .2008. He filed an application
151 of CPC to condone the delay in filing
‘written statement. The application was rejected and the case was
to 16.08.2008 for affidavit evidence of plaintiffs.
0. l–l:g’€~.ubse<i'uent1y, the Defendants 2, 4 and 6 approached this Court by
Writ Petition No.29"/87/2009, challenging the order dated
.l..u14.08.2009 passed on I.A.No.VIl refusing the receive the written
La
W.P.NO.-4666/2010
statement. Learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated
12.11.2009, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of
Rs.13,000/– to the plaintiffs within two weeks and also
to co–operate with the Trial Court for speedy disposallof
and the Trial Court was also directed toj'dils'po.se'l..of the 0
four months from the date of production of copyovf
After the order came to be passed PetitionNo.§£–r.E}"787'72009',' V
the present petitioner filed an…app1icatioln– l(l.-A.No.X[}~–.under Section
151 of CPC to recall the orderldlated' on I.A.No.IV
and condone the delayand statement filed by the
Defendant No.1. was rejected by the Trial Court by
order dated 'petitioner is before this Court
praying for quashin 23.07.2008 passed on I.A.No.lV.
3. conn._sel for the petitioner submits that since the
ijefendants 6 have been permitted by this Court to file
writteli1_st.aterr1eln~t.,__’yvritten statement of the petitioner also may be
Vfiplreceived by condoning the delay. He further submits that the
and 8 are the purchasers of the property from the
;”f)efendant No.1. When the application filed by the present
llpetitioner (I.A.No.IV} was rejected by order dated 23.07.2008, he did
approach this Court challenging that order. Only after the writ
W.P.NO/L666/2010
petition was filed by the Defendants 2, 4 and 6 was allowed directing
the Trial Court to receive the written statement by condoning the
delay, the present petitioner filed another application
Court to recall the order dated 23.07.2008.
resorted to challenge the order dated’._231′.’0?;2008′-.0onlylibeéanse 0
Defendants 2, 4 and 6 were permitted._ to tile ._Vi}r1’ttenl:staternent.
petitioner has not shown any interest’in:’proseciiting’jthei case when
an adverse order came to be that the petitioner
has sold the property in questionto and 6. There is
no good ground for the written statement. I
see no illegality of
4. In the ‘~resnlt;fthp:e fails and the same is hereby
dismissed. g&;fut
ccccc 3uDG{E
‘bnv*