IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.17845 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI MIRLE VARADARAJ S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.544, 5TH MAIN KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560 060 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S.RAVI, ADV.) AND:
SRI S NARAYAN S/O LATE SRIKANTH AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.30, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, TO DISPOSE OF O.S.NO.8844/2015, FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The plaintiff has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus praying to direct the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to dispose of O.S. No.8844/2015 as early as possible mainly contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the respondent for recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the respondent is taking adjournment on one pretext or other from the date of entering appearance on 06.11.2015 till 16.2.2019. Hence, there is a delay in disposing of the matter. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.7425-26/2002 between Bengaluru City Co-Operative Housing Limited V/s State of Karnataka and others has directed the members of the appellant as under:
43. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have build their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the land owners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have built the houses may not suffer. At the same time, we make it clear that the appellant must return the vacant land to the respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have carved out of the sites and allotted the same to its members. This must be done within a period of three months from today and during that period the appellant shall not change the present status of the vacant area/sites. The members of the appellant who may have been allotted the sites shall also not change the present status/character of the land. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Therefore, he sought to dispose of the mater at the earliest.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that suit is filed in the year 2015 by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the respondent- defendant is filing one or the other application and in that process, there is a delay. If both the counsel for the parties exhibit their institutional responsibility, there is no impediment for the trial Court to proceed with the suit and dispose of the matter at the earliest.
5. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, it is for the parties to co-operate with the trial Court to proceed with the suit. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to observe that both the parties shall co-operate with the trial Court to expedite the matter in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS