IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.54037 OF 2014 & 13805 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
C. ONKARAPPA S/O K. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PRO: M/S. CHANNAKESHAVA ENTERPRISES, 3RD CROSS C.K. PURA, BEHIND GENERAL HOSTEL CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
(By Mr. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BEHIND BASAVESHWARA TALKIES CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
(By Mr. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the learned Addl. District and Session Judge at Chitradurga in Civil Misc. No.156/2011 dated 15-7-2014 vide Ann-E and etc.
These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 15.07.2014 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), for setting aside ex-parte decree has been rejected. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. From perusal of the petitions, it is evident that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Trial Court by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte decree has been rejected. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code. Therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE RV