IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 46276 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT ERAMMA W/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SRI H KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE M.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SMT. H LAKSHMI, W/O LATE H VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4. SRI H.RAMAMURTHY, S/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. SRI H JAYANNA, S/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 6. SRI H THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE M HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI AJJAIAH S/O UGRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SMT. BAGYAMMA, W/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ... PETITIONERS 3. AKSHAY, S/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 4. AKSHITHA, D/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 5. SRI VEERESH S/O UGRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/O PAVAGADA ROAD, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI T. MANOHARA, S/O LATE M SANNATHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. SRI T MAHESH, S/O LATE M SANNATHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 8. SRI T MANJANNA @ T MANJUNATH, S/O LATE M SANNATHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 8 ARE CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT PRIYANKA STORES, PAVAGADA ROAD, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SRI M UGRAPPA, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, PAVAGADA ROAD, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 5; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2014, NOTICE TO R6 TO 9 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2014 ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.141/2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHALLAKERE VIDE ANN-E, AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.07.2014 IN M.A. NO.4/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT CHALLAKERE VIDE ANN-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners being the defendants in O.S.No.141/2013 filed by the respondents herein for a decree of partition and separate possession of property, are laying a challenge to the order dated 07.07.2014 dismissing their M.A.No.4/2014 and thereby confirming the order dated 14.03.2014 made by learned trial Judge allowing respondents I.A. I filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. 1908.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes submissions that the impugned orders are flawsome and therefore they are liable to be set at naught. The said submission is controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that regardless of their legality, the order restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property having been in operation for all these years, true justice can be done to both the sides if the trial of the suit is ordered to be expedited.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers.
4. Both the Trial Judge and the Appellate Judge having considered the matter have denied relief to the petitioner-defendants, in their discretionary jurisdiction and no illegality which warrants indulgence of Writ Court is therein demonstrated. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs that the learned Trial Judge may be directed to try and disposed of the suit itself in a time bound manner, pleadings having been completed.
5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not interfere with the impugned orders; however, in the fitness of things, a request is made to the learned Trial Judge to expeditiously dispose of the suit itself within an outer time limit of six months from the date a copy of this order is produced, and while computing the said six months, adjournments if any, to be taken by the petitioner-defendants shall be excluded.
No costs.
Snb/ Sd/- JUDGE