IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.20484/2014(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
B.S. SANNAULLA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE BAJISAB R/AT NO.6, I CROSS PADARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-26.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. RUKMINI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O R.K. MUTHUKRISHNA 2. SRI. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O R.K. MUTHUKRISHNA BOTH R/AT NO.10 7TH MAIN, ITI LAYOUT BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560 046.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.27142/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE & QUASH THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE ON I.A. DATED 1.4.2014 IN ANNEXURE-A & RESTORE THE SUIT O.S.NO.27142/2010 ON THE FILE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.27142/2010 whereunder application filed by the writ petitioner / plaintiff for restoration of suit came to be rejected.
2. Perusal of the records would disclose that petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.27142/2010, which suit came to be filed for the relief of perpetual injunction against defendants. Defendants appeared and contested the matter and during the pendency of suit learned counsel appearing for plaintiff filed a memo on 22.01.2014 to dismiss the suit as not pressed. Taking said memo on record, suit came to be dismissed by order dated 21.02.2014. Seeking recall of this order an application came to be filed under Section 151 CPC as per Annexure-A.
3. In the affidavit supporting the application it is stated by the plaintiff to the following effect:
“I submit that the dispute between me and the defendants is not settled. I had not given any instruction for dismissal of the case. I could not attend the case due to my ill health. I submit that if the case is not proceeded with I will be put to great hardship and injury and my right in respect of the valuable immovable property will be at jeopardy.”
4. The affidavit does not disclose that signature contained in the memo dated 21.02.2014 - Annexure-D is not that of the counsel representing plaintiff. Plaintiff also does not state that he had not authorised his Advocate as per Vakalathnama. As such, neither the order of dismissal of suit passed on 21.02.2014 and refusal to recall the said order by rejecting the application dated 01.04.2014 filed by plaintiff would call for interference by this Court. No grounds made out. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
In view of writ petition having been dismissed, I.A.No.1/2017 for paper publication does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR