IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.56817 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI N. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE R. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SRI N. KUPENDRA S/O LATE R. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 71 PILLAMMA ROAD BEHIND JALAVAYU VIHAR HRBR III BLOCK ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BANGALORE - 560084 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1. SRI A. CHANDRASHEKARAN S/O D AMIRTHA LINGAM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A NO. 15, RAMAIAH LAYOUT II CROSS, KAMMANAHALLI ST. THOMAS TOWN BANGALORE - 560084 2. SRI A. PARAMESHWARAN S/O D. AMIRTHA LINGAM AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A RAJAGOPALA NAGAR DURGA LANE TEMPLE ROAD 7TH MAIN ROAD, II CROSS II STAGE, PEENYA BANGALORE - 560058 3. SRI D AMIRTHA LINGAM S/O LATE DHARMA LINGAM AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/A PORTION OF NO. 15 RAMAIAH LAYOUT I CROSS, KAMMANAHALLI ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BANGALORE - 560084 4. SMT. VANAJA D/O. D. AMIRTHA LINGAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO. 108, VICTORIA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560007 5. SMT. PANKAJA D/O D. AMIRTHA LINGAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A NO. 108, VICTORIA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560007 6. SRI RAVISHANKAR S/O FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR R/A NO. 274, OIL MILL ROAD NARAYANAPPA’S STREET BANGALORE - 560084 ... RESPONDENTS (SRI H.K.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4 TO 6 & R3 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO.527/2012 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER None appeared for the petitioners. The advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 is present.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order passed by the Trial court on 21st November 2014 by which an additional issue on the valuation of the suit has been framed.
3. This order is purely an interlocutory order. Moreover, the order is capable of being challenged in an appeal which may be preferred against the decree passed in the suit, if the decree be adverse to the petitioner. Hence, no case for interference is made out for interference in Article 227 jurisdiction. The petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that no adjudication is made on the merits of the case and all contentions are kept open.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE AHB