IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.33056 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
DR. N.PUSHPALATHA, W/O H.K.RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.219, 4TH CROSS, HALAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-571 401.
(BY SRI. NATARAJU.T, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT. V.KANCHANA, W/O LATE T.MANI DORAI, D/O LATE T.M.VENKATACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.4-A, JAINS VENSEE APARTMENT, 12-5-16/1, VIJAYPURI COLONY, SOUTH LALAGUDA, SECUNDRABAD-560 017, ANDRA PRADESH STATE.
2 . SMT. V.VYJAYANTHI, W/O V.G.PRAKASHKUMAR, D/O LATE T.M.VENKATACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1496, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, MANDYA CITY.
3 . SRI.H.V.RAVI, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY.
... PETITIONER 4 . SMT. H.S.SAVITHA, W/O SHIVSHANKAR, AGE MAJOR, R/AT HOSAHALLI, MANDYA CITY.
5 . DR. M.S.THRINESHGOWDA, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, R/O DOCTORS QUARTERS, DISTRICT HOSPITAL PREMISES, MANDYA CITY.
6 . SMT. K.VASANTHA, W/O DR. M.S.THRINESHGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/O DOCTORS QUARTERS, DISTRICT HOSPITAL PREMISES, MANDYA CITY.
7 . SRI. SARVOTHAMA SHETTY, S/O MAHABALASHETTY, AGE MAJOR, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL GANESH PRASAD, BAZAAR STREET, MANDYA CITY.
8 . THE MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, 100 FT. ROAD, MANDYA CITY.
9 . THE MANAGER, LOKAPAVANI MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VINOBA ROAD, MANDYA CITY.
10 . SRI. KRISHNA P.V.
S/O SMT. VYJAYANTHI & V.G.PRAKASHKUMAR, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.1496, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, MANDYA CITY.
... RESPONDENTS (R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-10 IS D/W V/O DTD 27/07/2017) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.7.2017 PASSED ON I.A. U/O 9 RULE 7 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.76/2012 BY THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the fourth defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.76/2012 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 06.07.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby, his application filed under Order IX Rule 7 has been rejected by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mandya refusing to raise his ex-parte placement despite service of notice, first respondent has remained unrepresented; however notice to respondent Nos.2 to 10 has been dispensed with.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that reprieve needs to be granted to him inasmuch as the reason assigned in the affidavit supporting the subject application is apparently plausible. This apart, the Courts in treating applications of the kind need to be bit lenient and would not prejudice the scrupulous litigants. This having not been done there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s subject application having been favoured he is permitted to participate in the suit proceedings from the stage he was placed ex-parte; the trial Judge to take further steps.
Petitioner is liable to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only, to the first respondent-plaintiff within one month, failing which, the order now quashed shall stand resurrected.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS