IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.18895/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. BARIKARA BHEEMAPPA, S/O LATE PAKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUNDAKATTI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK-580131 DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
SINCE PETITIONER DIED REP. BY LRS 1.(a) SMT. BARIKARA GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE BARIKARA BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1.(b) SRI BARIKARA HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE BARIKARA BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1.(c) SRI BARIKARA KENCHAPPA, S/O LATE BARIKARA BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 1.(d) SRI BARIKARA NAGARAJA, S/O LATE BARIKARA BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1(a to d) ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GUNDAGATHI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KEERTIDA KOLAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
BARIKARA HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE PAKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUNDAKATTI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT (BY SHRI H.H.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI PASSED ON I.A.NO. III DATED 7.2.2015 IN O.S. 69/2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners being the plaintiffs in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.69/2003 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 07.02.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Harapanahalli having allowed the respondent-defendant’s application in I.A.No.3, has condoned the delay in filing the Written Statement and thereby has taken the Written Statement on payment of a cost of Rs.200/-. After service of notice the respondent-defendant having entered appearance through his counsel resists the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to interfere in the matter inasmuch as the Court below having exercised the discretion has passed the impugned order; the Apex Court in the case of TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG & OTHERS V. RAMCHANDRA GANESH BIDE, AIR 1977 SC 1222 has held that when the orders are the products of exercise of discretion by the trial Court, the Writ Court should be slow in granting indulgence.
2A. the second reason for declining the indulgence is that the impugned order has brought about a just result and if it is not sustained, the respondent would be put to a manifest injustice; now that after filing of the Written Statement the battle lines having been drawn up all contentions are open to the petitioners to take up in accordance with law.
However, the cost imposed on the respondent/defendant in a sum of Rs.200/- being militantly low, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- which the respondent shall pay to the plaintiffs within a period of four weeks or before the next date of hearing of the suit, whichever is later, failing which, the impugned order shall be treated as having been quashed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE