IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.15719 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT A BHARATHI W/O MR A NARAYANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.510 ROAD NO.22, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500033 (BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADV.) AND:
1. JOGEGOWDA S/O THAMMAYYAPPA @ THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS 2. SHIVEGOWDA S/O JOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. MARIGOWDA S/O JOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. CHIKKATHAYAMMA D/O JOGEGOWDA W/O MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 5. SANNATHAYAMMA D/O JOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ... PETITIONER 6. PUTTATHAYAMMA D/O JOGEGOWDA W/O NARSIMHANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7. LAKSHMI W/O KENCHEGOWDA GRANDDAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THAMMAYAPPA @ THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. THAMMEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 9. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 10. BHAGYAMMA D/O MARIGOWDA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 11. SANNA MARIYAMMA D/O MARIGOWDA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 12. CHIKKATHAYAMMA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 13. PUTTABORAMMA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 14. SHIVAMMA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 15. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA W/O UMESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 16. GOWRAMMA D/O KENCHEGOWDA W/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 17. SAROJA D/O KENCHEGOWDA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 18. BORAMMA D/O THAMMAYYAPPA @ THAMMEGOWDA W/O BORALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BALAVADI VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF OS.NO.1608/2007 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT MYSURU EXPEDITIOUSLY AND IN ANY EVENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Defendant No.8 has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Prl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.), Mysuru to dispose of O.S. No.1608/2007 expeditiously and in any event within a period of one year.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 18 have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property and for a declaration. The petitioner being highly aggrieved by the delay of disposal of the suit has filed the present writ petition for speedy disposal.
3. It is the specific grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case is that suit in O.S. No.1608/2007 was filed in the year 2007 and till today suit is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and the suit being dragged by the plaintiffs/respondents and the delay in disposal of the suit is causing irreparable hardship and injury to the petitioner. Therefore, he sought to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame of one year.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that suit was filed in the year 2007 by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession etc., against the petitioner herein. If the plaintiffs and defendant exhibits their institutional responsibility, there is no impediment to the trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest. If the plaintiffs and defendants were not co-operating with the Court to dispose of the case, the trial Court cannot be blamed and this Court cannot issue writ of mandamus by exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
5. However, taking into consideration the suit is of the year 2007, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter subject to co-operation of both the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS