IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.25737/2018(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. LOKESHWARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI. INDIRA KUMAR AND ORS. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT JAYALAKSHMI NIVASA, 2ND MAIN, 8TH STREET, BANK AVENUE, M.S. NAGAR POST, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 033.
No.1 BEING THEWIFE AND 2 AND 3 BEING THE CHILDREN OF LATE SRI N. CHARI.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJAY J. N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. N. CHARI, 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O. LATE SRI. NARAYANAPPA, NOW DECEASED, BOTH RESIDING AT #1, GOVINDAPPA GARDEN, OPP KATERAMMA TEMPLE, P.S.K. NAIDU ROAD, DODDIGUNTA, COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 DECEASED) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2018 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN O.S.26156/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The defendants filed the present writ petition to quash the Order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.26156/2012 disposing of the Memo dated 09.11.2016.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent herein/first plaintiff filed Memo dated 09.11.2016 along with copy of the Codicil dated 15.01.2013 allegedly written by the second respondent, wherein she bequeaths her share in the suit schedule property in favour of the first respondent. The said memo was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections and genuineness of the Codicil was disputed. The learned Judge, without passing any orders on the objections, by Order dated 06.01.2018 disposed of the Memo. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. Sri M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits that the Memo filed may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the first respondent herein to file an appropriate application, in accordance with law.
4. In view of the above, Memo filed by the first plaintiff dated 09.11.2016 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, it is always open for the defendants to file objections and it is for the learned Trial Judge to consider and pass orders, strictly in accordance with law. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm