IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.27504/2016(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S ENGINEERS SYNDICATE (INDIA) LTD NO.477, 13TH CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. PRIYAMVADA REDDY.K AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 3RD FLOOR, KEERTHI & PRIDE TOWERS ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, PIN 500034.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI B. S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NARAYANA SWAMY @ AMBARISH S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.31/1A, KODICHIKKANAHALL VILLAGE IIM POST, BTM 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560076.
2. DODDA VENKATAPPA S/O LATE DODDA BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE DODDA BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. SHASHI KUMAR S/O LATE DODDA BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 5. SMT. MANGAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA BALAPPA W/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. RAMAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA & LATE MUNIYELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7. VENKATESH S/O YELLAPPA & LATE MUNIYELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8. SMT. MARIYAMMA D/O YELLAPPA & LATE MUNIYELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9. SRINIVAS S/O YELLAPPA & LATE MUNIYELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 10. YELLAPPA S/O YELLAPPA & LATE MUNIYELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 11. SMT. MANGAMMA D/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 12. SMT. YELLAMMA D/O LATE GURAPPA W/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 13. SMT. KAVERAMMA D/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 14. GOPALA S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 15. SATHISHA S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 16. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 17. PAPANNA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 18. SMT. KAVERAMMA D/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 19. PRAKASHA S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 20. SMT. ROOPA D/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 21. MANJUNATHN S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 22. SUBRAMANI S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 23. SMT. YELLAMMA D/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 24. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 25. HANUMAPPA S/O LATE DODDA BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 26. MURALI S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 27. GANGADHARA S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 28. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 29. NAGARAJA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 30. SRINIVASA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 31. HARISHA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 32. SHASHI KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 33. ANANDA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 34. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 35. GUNDAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 36. SMT. SARITHA D/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 37. SMT. DEEPA D/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 38. VIJAY KUMAR S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 39. RAGHAVENDRA S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.2 TO 39 ARE RESIDING AT KODICHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560076.
40. K.RAVINDER REDDY S/O PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3RD FLOOR, KEERTHI & PRIDE TOWERS ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-39; SRI PRAKASH M.H. ADVOCATE FOR R-40) **** THIS WRIT PETITIONS IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC DATED 30.4.2016 IN O.S.NO. 905/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LVIII CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE AT ANENXURE-K THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 30.04.2016 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.905/2016 on the file of the XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-44), Bengaluru.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that MFA No.4194/2016 and allied matters were filed by the respondents herein challenging the Order dated 10.03.2016 pursuant to which the Order dated 30.04.2016 impugned herein was passed. The said appeals are disposed of as having become infructuous. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions also do not survive for consideration, more particularly, in view of the compliance of the order dated 10.03.2016 made by the petitioner herein on 30.04.2016 by filing an undertaking as directed by the Trial Court. The said submission of the learned counsel for the parties is placed on record.
4. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed quashing the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 made in O.S.No.905/2016 on the file of the Trial Court.
5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all the pending IAs stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm