IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.27033/2019 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.28008-28009/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI H. RAMANNA S/O. LATE HUCHAIAH PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.11, 4TH MAIN ROAD SHANKARANAGAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 086 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVASAN K.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MRS. FLORENCE MORIS W/O. LATE DINESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. DORAIA FLONA DINESH D/O. LATE DINESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.30 10TH CROSS, JAGADISH NAGAR JEEVANBHIMANAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 075.
3. MRS. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O. LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 4. H. RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.58 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 021 5. MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE H. LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 6. MISS L. JEEVITHA D/O. LATE H. LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 7. MISS L. RANJITHA D/O. LATE H. LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.2514/M 7TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD R.P.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 8. MRS. R. NAGARATHNA W/O. B.G.CHANDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 9. MR. C. RAVEENDRA S/O. B.G. CHANDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.8 & 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/4 GROUND FLOOR, “NISARGA” BDA ENCLAVE, 5TH BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085 ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ON I.A.NOS.16,17 AND 18 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.8188/2008 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CCH-13 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE ABOVE IAS. AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner being the 2nd defendant in the contesting respondents Civil Suit in O.S.No.8188/2008 for a decree of declaration & partition is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, whereby the learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge, has allowed plaintiff’s applications in I.A. No. 16 & 17 for appointment of Court Commissioner for recording the evidence of plaintiff’s witness.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Court below ought not to have allowed the applications of the petitioner in the absence of evidentiary material vouching what is stated in the affidavit accompanying the applications; he further argues that what prejudice would have been caused to the plaintiffs if the applications were not allowed, has not been discussed. So arguing, he finds fault with the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the petition papers. This is not a fit case for granting indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the impugned order is a product of exercise of discretion that has brought about just result and therefore does not merit deeper scrutiny at the hands of Writ Court; and (b) the Court below has assigned cogent reason for allowing the said applications going by the contents of the affidavit that are not disputed by filing a counter affidavit. Even otherwise also, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KLV