IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NOs.44540/2017 & 9980/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O RAFI AHAMAD, AGED 48 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.KT 625, ELURAMMA NILAYA, BEHIND ABHINAYA BHARATHI COLLEGE, 4TH CROSS, SHANKARANAGARA, MANDYA CITY-571 426 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAMOD.R, ADVOCATE) AND B.SOWBHAGYA W/O K THIMMEGOWDA, R/AT SAPTAGIRI NILAYA, OPPOSITE: POLICE GROUND BANNUR ROAD, CHAMUNDESWARNAGAR, MANDYA CITY-571 426 ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-H DTD:25.07.2017 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA IN O.S.NO.18/2016 UNDER 38 RULE 8 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC UNDER I.ANO.8 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner-Siddagangamma, who is defendant in O.S.No.18/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, has come up in these writ petitions seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.07.2017 passed in the said suit on I.A.No.8 under Order 38 Rule 8 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the defendant seeking to raise the order of attachment passed in the said suit in favour of the plaintiff and also for a prayer to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.1 under Order 38 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC.
2. On going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice to respondent regarding the present writ petition may not be necessary in as much as the alternate prayer of the petitioner seeking direction to the trial Court for disposal of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC is on time bound basis.
3. The petitioner herein would submit that in O.S.No.18/2016 the respondent/plaintiff sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,77,500/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy seven thousand five hundred only). The said suit is based on an agreement which is supported by a Negotiable Instrument (cheque). Admittedly, in the proceedings before the Court below an application is filed by the plaintiff seeking attachment of the immovable property belonging to the defendant, in which she is stated to be residing along with her family.
4. The court below even before deciding the application in I.A.No.1 under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC on merits, passed an ad-interim order of attachment before judgment of suit schedule property pending consideration of application in I.A.No.1. Thereafter, the defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.8 seeking raising of the attachment which came to be dismissed by order dated 25.07.2017.
5. It is in this background this writ petition is filed impugning the aforesaid order wherein the alternative prayer is seeking direction to the Court below to dispose of the application filed seeking attachment before judgment on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, in O.S.No.18/2016 should be decided on merits.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned. On going through merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the application in I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC is still not disposed of on merits, the Trial Court shall dispose of the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With such observation, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE TL