IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2366 OF 2017(S-RES) BETWEEN:
DR PARVATHI M WIFE OF DR.MADHU S.D AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20 OF A 6TH ‘A’ MAIN, 11TH CROSS J.P.NAGAR, III PHASE BENGALURU-560 078.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI:K.C.SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR POOJA SHASHIDHARAN DAUGHTER OF DR.B.SHASHIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.459, "SHIVAKRUPA" 5TH STAGE, 1ST PHASE, 1ST MAIN B.E.M.L. LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 098.
2. BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (BMCRI) (AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA) K.R. ROAD, KOTE BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTD BY ITS DIRECTOR AND DEAN.
3. THE DIRECTOR AND DEAN BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (BMCRI) (AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA) K.R. ROAD, KOTE BENGALURU-560 002.
4. DR.YOGANANDA M.N.
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT SRI HIREBEERALINGESHWARA SWAMY NILAYA, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE SHARADANAGAR, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
5. DR. VISHWANATHA REDDY N SON OF NARAYANA SWAMY.K AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT ALAVATTA VILLAGE THIMMASANDRA POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: M SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT:M.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2017 PASSED ON IA 4 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3306 OF 2017 AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION [IA 4 OF 2017] WITH COSTS ALL THROUGH.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3306 of 2017 on IA.4 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the application filed by the appellant to vacate the interim order granted, respondent No.3 therein is in appeal.
2. By the order dated 03.03.2017, an interim order was granted after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was noticed that no objection have been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Even though notice was issued, there is no mention that respondent No.3 was heard when the interim order was granted. Consequently, when IA.4 of 2017 was filed by the appellant seeking to vacate the interim order, it was rejected on the ground that the interim order was granted after hearing the learned Counsels.
3. On examining the material on record, we do not think so. The appellant/respondent No.3 was not heard when the interim order was granted. It was only the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were heard. Therefore, respondent No.3 requires to be heard on IA.4 of 2017 for vacating the stay.
4. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 17.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3306 of 2017 on IA.4 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, is set aside. IA.4 of 2017 is restored to file. IA.4 of 2017 is to be considered on merits by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.
Pending interlocutory applications stands rejected.
Interim order granted by this Court on 03.03.2017 shall continue till the disposal of IA.4 of 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-