IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.14826-14829/2016(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O BENNACHAKALLU GUTTE, AT BHIMANAKUPPE RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK PIN : 560060.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI THIMMANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. K.S. PUTTARANGAIAH S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 2. SRI K S PUTTAIAH, S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI, TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, PIN:562122.
3. SRI K R MUDDAIAH, S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI, TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 4. SMT. BYRAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 5. SRI ASHWATH W/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 6. SRI ANKAPPA S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 7. SR NARASIMAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 8. SRI CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122 9. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC:NOT KNOWN R/O AT KURUBARAHALLI TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN:562122.
(BY SRI S. SUDARSANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) … ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI, REJECTING ALL APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.63/2014 VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plaintiff has filed these writ petitions against the order dated 25.8.2014 rejecting the applications filed by her on the ground that though the case was called, neither the plaintiff nor her Counsel were present and as there was no arguments on I.As.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the suit filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties for her 1/4th share each contending that the suit schedule properties are belonging to plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition among themselves. The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that there was earlier partition and hence the suit itself is not maintainable.
3. When the matter was posted for hearing on the applications filed under Order XIV Rule 5, Order I Rule 10(2), Order I Rule 10(2), Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Counsel for the plaintiff was not present. Therefore, the applications came to be rejected in a single line order stating that when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff is present. No arguments advanced. Hence, the applications are rejected.’ Against the said order, the present writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Thimmanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications even though mentioning of the provisions in the applications, that too in a single line order is not a speaking order and the same cannot be sustained. He further contended that when the applications are filed and the defendants have filed their objections to the said applications, it is the duty of the Court to give an opportunity to the party, who has filed the application and pass a reasoned order. But the same has not been done and therefore, sought to allow the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, Sri S. Sudarsana Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order and contended that inspite of granting sufficient time, the plaintiff was not pursuing the applications filed by her though the suit was filed in the year 2007 and till the year 2014, the plaintiff has not addressed any arguments on the applications filed. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, it is an undisputed fact that the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. When the rights of the parties are involved in respect of the immoveable properties, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the applications filed as stated supra mainly on the ground that the plaintiff and his Counsel are absent and no arguments were advanced. Absolutely in the impugned order dated 23.8.2014, no reasons are assigned why the said applications are rejected. Therefore, the said order is not a speaking order and the same cannot be sustained.
8. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned order dated 23.8.2014 made on I.As. in O.S.No.118/2007 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider all the applications filed by the plaintiff as stated supra, after providing an opportunity of being heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff shall address arguments on the said applications on merits on 19.3.2019 or on the next date of hearing to be fixed by the learned Judge without seeking any further adjournment and the trial Court shall consider the arguments and pass orders in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees One Thousand on each of the applications).
9. Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2007 and we are in the year 2019, the trial Court shall expedite the suit itself subject to co-operation by the learned Counsel for both parties to the lis.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-