IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.49164/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. BHADRAKALAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. SHRI CHAMAPPA, R/AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 570 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. CHEKKANAMMA W/O. LATE SHRI CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O. LATE SRI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 570 001.
3. SMT. BASAMANAMMA W/O. SHRI MALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 570 001.
4. SMT. PUTTAVEERAMMA @ SANNAMMA W/O. SHRI RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SHETTYNAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ELAVALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: SANDEEP KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI MAHANTESH S. HOSNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4 - SERVED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF IN THE COURT OF II CIVIL JUDG & JMFC (JR. DN.) AT MYSORE IN O.S.392/2014 AND QUASH THE ORDER DT.02.09.2014 IN I.A.VI PASSED BY THE II CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC MYSORE, IN O.S.392/2014 AS PER ANNX-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.392/2014, which is pending on the file of II Civil Judge & JMFC (Jr. Dn.) at Mysore. That suit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
2. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1/petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 02/09/2014 (Annexure-E), the said application had been dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ought to have preferred a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. In the circumstances, it is held that this writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy, if so advised.
4. Office to return the certified copies of the documents annexed to the writ petition to petitioner’s counsel forthwith, subject to filing of copies of the same for the purpose of record.
Sd/- JUDGE S*