IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50998 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., 1(a) SRI. HAREESH, S/O LATE GAGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 1(b) SRI. VINODA S/O LATE GAGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 1(c) SRI. SURESHA S/O LATE GAGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 1(d) SMT. MANJULA, W/O LATE GAGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2 . SRI A.S.MALLESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3 . SRI. S.SIDDAVEERAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4 . SRI. S.SHIVASHANKARAIAH S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 1(a) TO 1(d) AND 2 TO 4 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF ALLALASANDRA VILLAGE, KOLAL HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) SRI JAYARAJU S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O DADAGATTA MADAGU, SASLU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RUAL DISTRICT 561 203.
2 . N.SANJEEVINI, W/O SURENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.234, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, SRINIVAGILY TANK ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 12.7.2019 ON IA FILED U/S 151 OF CPC FOR RE-OPENING OF THE CASE IN O.S.NO.163/2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration & injunction in O.S.No.163/2008 are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 12.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Koratagere, having rejected their application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, has refused to reopen the case and to permit the petitioners to examine certain persons as witnesses in relation to possession of the property which allegedly they hold in mortgage and the said property having been later sold to others.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, no case is made out for indulgence in the matter, this Court being in complete agreement with the reasoning in the impugned order.
3. The other reason for declining indulgence is that suit is of the year 2008 and thus more than a decade has lapsed and even now it is yet to reach the destination point. Going by that the application is highly belated even if the evidence of the other side was taken as closed on 18.09.2018.
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine regardless of the above observation it is open to the petitioner to lay a challenge to the impugned order under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(A) of the amended Code, if & when they suffer an adverse decree.
Sd/- JUDGE DS