Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri A K Venkatesh vs Manjunath V And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|27 April, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7969/2017 (GM - CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI A.K.VENKATESH S/O LATE DODDAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.313/2, CHINNAMARIE HEBBAL-GUDDADAHALLI RT NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, FOR SRI G CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANJUNATH V S/O LATE VEERBHADRAPPA @ SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.3, CHINNAMARIE LAYOUT HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024 2. SRINIVAS V @ BALARAMA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA @ SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560067 3. SRI A LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE DODDAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 4. SRI A CHANDRAPPA SRI A CHANDRAPPA 1.AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 5. C VENKATESH S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 6. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 7. A C MUNISWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 8. A C MALLIKARJUN S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 9. SMT VENNAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 10. A C RAJANNA S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 11. A C VENKATACHALAPATHY S/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 12. SMT LATHA D/O LATE CHIKKAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 13. PADMANABHA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA @ SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 14. KANTHAMMA D/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA @ SHAMANNA AGED AOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 15. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA @ SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 16. M.P. KRISHNAPPA S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 17. CHINNANNA S/O M. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDI MALLASANDRA POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 067 18. SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O K.M. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O CAUVERY FARM ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MEDI MALLASANDRA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGLORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 560067.
OWNER OF CAUVERY FARM ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MEDI MALLASANDRA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE.
19. CAVERAPPA S/O K. RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEAS OWNER OF CAUVERY FARM ANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MEDI MALLASANDRA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C GOWRISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R3, R4, R13, R15, R16, R17 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:27.1.2017 PASSED ON IA UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.1411/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri R.P.Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Gowrishankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that he has no objection to allow the writ petition by framing additional issue No.1 as sought under interlocutory application at Annexure-D. His submission is placed on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would also submit that petitioner is protracting the proceedings before the trial Court on one pretext or the other and prays for direction being issued to dispose of the suit within a time frame. Same is seriously disputed by Sri R.P.
Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner.
4. Having regard to the fact that suit is of the year 2011 and trial is yet to commence and to safeguard the interest of both parties, necessary directions requires to be issued.
5. Hence, placing the submission of Sri. Gowrishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Order dated 27.01.2017 dismissing the interlocutory application (Annexure-D) in part is hereby allowed in its entirety and additional issue No.1 as framed thereunder Annexure-D is ordered to be framed by the trial Court.
(iii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously keeping in mind the Case Management Rules, 2005 and the fact that suit is of the year as 2011. It is also made clear that trial Court would be at liberty to regulate its proceedings if necessary by imposing exemplary costs on such of the parties, who seek for adjournment without offering satisfactory explanation for seeking such adjournment.
SD/- JUDGE HJ
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri A K Venkatesh vs Manjunath V And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 April, 2017
Judges
  • Aravind Kumar