IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.10354/2019(GM-CPC) SHOBHA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O SUDHAKER HEGDE, NO.705, A4, THUNGABHADRA BLOCK, NATIONAL GAMES COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560047.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. U. M. SATYENDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE M. MUDDANNA, RESIDING AT NO.B/203, SHEEBA APARTMENT, 17TH CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.
2. HEMA N SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O U.M. NAGENDRA SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-301, NANDI WOODS, 67/1 AND 67/2, YELANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-76 3. ASHWINI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O U.M. NAGENDRA SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-301, NANDI WOODS, 67/1 AND 67/2, YELANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560076.
4. U.M. MAHENDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE M. MUDDANNA, RESIDING AT NO.1133, 22ND C MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, SECTOR-1 HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560102 5. U.M. KIRAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE M. MUDDANNA, RESIDING AT SUPRABHA COMPLEX, PILLAR VILLAGE, MUDARANGADI POST, VIA SHIRVA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.
6. B. SUDHAKARA HEGDE ADULT, H/O SHOBHA HEGDE, RESIDING AT NO.404 PURVA VANTAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102.
7. ANITHA HEGDE ADULT, D/O SHOBHA HEGDE, RESIDING AT NO.404 PURVA VANTAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102.
8. BALIKA HEGDE ADULT, D/O SHOBHA HEGDE, RESIDING AT NO.404 PURVA VANTAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102 9. SHALIKA HEGDE ADULT, D/O SHOBHA HEGDE, RESIDING AT NO.404 PURVA VANTAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102 10. MINOR THANISHKA REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BALIKA HEGDE RESIDING AT NO.404 PURVA VANTAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102.
... RESPONDENTS … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE COURT BELOW IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROCEED TO POST THE MATTER FOR FINAL ARGUMENTS IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.42/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CJM COURT AT UDUPI AS EVIDENCED IN ANNEXURE-A, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSENT WITHOUT DECIDING THE I.A.NO.6 IN RESPECT OF WHICH COUNSELS ON EITHER SIDE BEFORE THE COURT BELOW ADDRESSED THE ARGUMENTS, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the learned Judge to pass orders on I.A.6 in O.S.No.42/2012 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional CJM Court at Udupi before deciding the said suit on merits.
2. Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the order sheet that the learned trial Judge having heard the arguments on I.A., on 24.9.2018, posted the matter for orders on 11.10.2018, 22.10.2018 and 23.10.2018 and ultimately on 2.11.2018, a clarification was sought by the trial Court and the matter was posted for further hearing on 14.11.2018, on which date, as there was no representation, the matter was adjourned to 1.12.2018 for further hearing on I.A.6. Again on 1.12.2018, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant submitted that I.A.6 shall be taken up along with the main matter. Hence based on their submission, the learned Judge posted the matter for main arguements.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant submitted that I.A.6 shall be taken up along with the main, still it is the duty of the Court to pass orders on I.A.6 once the matter was reserved for orders on I.A. He further contended that no such submission was made by the learned Counsel for defendant before the learned Judge.
4. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the order sheet dated 1.12.2018. It is the institutional duty of the learned Counsel for the parties to assist the Court properly and should not blame the Court unnecessarily. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties on 1.12.2018 that the application may taken along with main, the learned Judge believed the learned Members of the Bar and posted I.A.6 along with the main.
5. In view of the above, writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner-defendant cannot be issued in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
6. However, in view of the specific contention taken by the learned Counsel for the defendant- petitioner that no such submission was made before the trial Court, it is inevitable for the learned Judge to pass orders on I.A.6. Stating something before the learned Judge of the trial Court and denying the same before this Court reflects the conduct of the learned Counsel for the defendant which is nothing but an “attempt to browbeat the Court” and it amounts to abuse of process of law and “calculated to defeat the administration of justice”. The learned Judge should be careful in future in believing such oral statements from the counsel for the 1st defendant in order to maintain the majesty of the Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-