IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.45975/2017(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. K. LEELAVATHI, W/O. LATE K. ANANTH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. K. VINOD KUMAR, S/O. LATE K. ANANTH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.717, 8TH MAIN, H.A.L. II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008.
(BY SRI SARAVANA S , ADVOCATE FOR SRI D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. B. SIDDARTHA, S/O. BALAMURALI & K. ANITHA BALAMURALI, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, STUDENT, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN TO THE MINOR PLAINTIFF, R/A: NO.717, 8TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008.
... PETITIONERS 2. K. AJITH KUMAR, S/O. LATE K. ANANTH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. K. ANITHA BALAMURALI, D/O. K. ANANTH, W/O. BALAMURALI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 717, 8TH MAIN, H.A.L. II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008.
4. C. R. MANOHAR S/O. P. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BUSINESS BY PROFESSION, R/A "DWARAKA NILAYA", SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 125.
... RESPONDENTS …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU, ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC ON 2.4.2014 FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 WITHIN THE TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 25341/2014 filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, (CCH-29) to dispose of the application filed by defendants 1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, within a time frame.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the application was filed on 02.04.2014, the sufficient time was granted to file objections. On 28.01.2016, prayer of the respondent to file objections was rejected and the matter was posted for hearing on I.A. Inspite of the same, even after lapse of more than one year, the Trial Court did not proceed to consider the application. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The petitioners should pursue the Trial Court, first, and should not rush to this seeking a mandamus to direct the Trial Court to consider the application. The entire order sheet produced by the petitioners clearly indicates that the matter was posted for hearing on I.A. from 20.01.2016 till 08.08.2017. If the petitioners are ready to argue the case, there was no impediment for the Trial Court to hear and pass orders on the application.
4. In view of the above, this Court declines to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is always open for the petitioners to approach the Trial Court and persuade the Court to consider the I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure and it is for the Trial Court to consider the said application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm