IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.56612/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
B.M.HUSSAIN S/O IBRAHIM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.401 4TH FLOOR, SAI RADHA STAR NEAR HI-TECH HOSPITAL NH-17, AMBALPADY UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.RAJIV REDDY MAJOR, CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD.
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS NO.6-3-1219/A, BEGUMPET HYDERABAD – 500 016 2. MR. SIDDARTH REDDY MAJOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD.
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS NO.6-3-1219/A, BEGUMPET HYDERABAD – 500 016 3. MR.MUDDASIR AHMED MAJOR, VCV-MANG-200 LINE MANAGER D.NO.15-6-302/12 GOLDFINCH COMPLEX BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD MANGALORE – 575 003 4. MR. KORVENI MAJOR, VCV-MANG-187 TAKEOVER MANAGER D.NO.15-6-302/12 GOLDFINCH COMPLEX BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD MANGALORE – 575 003 5. MR. IMTHIYAZ MAJOR, VCV-MANG-36 SALES EXECUTIVE COUNTRY VACATIONS (A DIVISION OF COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD.) D.NO.15-6-302/12 GOLDFINCH COMPLEX BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD MANGALORE – 575 003 6. MR. DILSHAD HUSSAIN W/O B.M.HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.401 4TH FLOOR, SAI RADHA STAR NEAR HI-TECH HOSPITAL NH-17, AMBALPADY UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR JUDGE) UDUPI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE OR IN ITS ENTIRETY, SEEKING TO FRAME ADDITIONAL ISSUES WHICH CLEARLY ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DIRECTION AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR JUDGE) UDUPI TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.III DATED 22.1.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. As could be seen from the impugned order dated 22.06.2016, the additional issues framed are not stated in the order. In view of this, it is appropriate for the petitioner to apply to the trial Court to clarify its order dated 22.06.2016. If such an application is made, the trial Court shall either clarify its order or shall consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR