IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.2264-2266 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SMT NAGAMMA DECEASED BY LRS 1. SHRI M K GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.349, 6TH CROSS, SRINIVASAPURA COLONY, KENGERI, BENGALURU.
2. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.195, 7TH MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA LAYOUT, KENGERI, BENGALURU.
3. SMT SUNDRAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.166, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, SRINIVASAPURA COLONY, KENGERI, BENGALURU.
ALL PETITIONERS ABOVE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SHRI CHINMAYA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED 78 YEARS, DOOR NO.61, ULLAL POST, CHIKKABASTI, SULIGIRE, KENGERI, BENGALURU. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI TIMMANNA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND SMT PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.174/412, KHB COLONY, CHINNASWAMY STREET, TRIVENI NAGARA, BHAILAPURA, T.NARASIPURA TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.18, I.A.NO.19 AND I.A.NO.20 DATED 5.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.229/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT T.NARASIPURA VIDE ANNEX-R AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration & possession in O.S.No.229/2008, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 5.10.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure – R, whereby their applications in I.A.Nos.18, 19 & 20 in effect for facilitating filing of a Reply to the Counter Claim have been rejected.
After service of notice, the respondent-defendant having entered appearance through her counsel, resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter agreeing with the reasoning of the impugned order that the subject applications have been moved with inordinate delay sans plausible explanation, that too when the trial is half a through.
3. This apart, the impugned order being a product of exercise of discretion by the court below in accordance with rules of reasons and justice, does not merit a deeper scrutiny at the hands of writ court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction u/a 227 of the Constitution of India, vide Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company, (2003) 3 SCC 524.
4. The other reason for not granting indulgence is that the petitioners have a deferred remedy in the sense that they can make the impugned order one of the grounds for challenging the judgment & decree if and when made adverse to their interest, in terms of Section 105 r/w Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908.
All contentions with regard to validity of the impugned order in the above circumstances are kept open.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are disposed off. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc