IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.45271/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.N.S.SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. S.RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. S.SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. S.MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. S.SHYAM SUNDAR S/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. S. SATHISH S/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A 4224, MUTHYALAPETE MULABAGILU TOWN KOLAR DIST-561 212 7. SMT.KAMALAVATHI D/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A HARATI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DIST–561 200 8. SMT.ARATHI D/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A KELAMANGALA VILLAGE DENKANI KOTTAI TALUK DHARMAPURI DIST., TAMILANADU-413 256 9. SMT.SHYLAJA D/O LATE A S SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI.ASHWATHAPPA ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ARAVIND REDDY H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K.R.SUBRAMANYAM S/O LATE K RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A MANGALAPET VILLAGE KALKADA POST CHITTOR DIST-515 053 2. SMT.RAMADEVI S/O LATE K RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A MUDIYANUR VILLAGE & POST MULABAGAL TALUK KOLAR DIST.-561 212 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:20.09.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, INTINERATING AT MULBAGAL, IN REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/LRS OF PLAINTIFF I.E., I.A.NO.29 UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10(A) R/W SEC.151 CPC., IN O.S.NO.149/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners are calling in question the order dated 20.09.2017, passed on I.A.No.29, in O.S.No.149/2005 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, Itinerating at Mulbagal, dismissing their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. Heard Sri Ashwathappa for Sri Aravind Reddy H., learned Counsel for the petitioners.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, arguing in support of the writ petition, contended that the petitioners filed the instant application for appointment of Court Commissioner for comparing the signatures of the defendants on the agreement of sale with that of the signatures found on the postal acknowledgments Exs.P6 and P7. He submitted that the comparison of signatures is necessary in view of execution of agreement by the defendants.
4. On consideration of the material on record, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has already examined one of the attesting witnesses and scribe of Ex.P1 as P.Ws.2 and 3 and no application was filed by the plaintiff immediately after completion of defendants’ evidence on 13.04.2009. Admittedly, the application was filed on 16.08.2017, after lapse of eight years from the date of completion of defendants’ evidence. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order impugned in this writ petition.
5. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.