IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.1288 OF 2015 (LA - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI PAPANNA SON OF LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK – 562 101 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. SRI PAPANNA SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRs’.
1.a SMT. RATHNAMMA WIFE OF LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1.b SMT. BHARATHAMMA WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJU DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAVATHOOR VILLAGE TITA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISRICT.
1.c SMT. BHAGYAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA WIFE OF LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UDDUTHI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR AND TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
1.d SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY SON OF LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
1.e SMT. SUMALATHA DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA WIFE OF SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SAKKAREGOLLAHALLI, BELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1.f SMT. SAROJAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA WIFE OF LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YERS, RESIDENT OF MAVATHOOR VILLAGE, TITA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
1.g SMT. NIRMALA DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA WIFE OF RAMU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1.h SMT. SHYLAJA DAUGHTER OF LATE PAPANNA WIFE OF MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AVATHI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI HOBLI AND TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1.i SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
APPLICANTS 1.a, 1.d, 1.g AND 1.i ARE RESIDENTS OF MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK – 562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, GOWRIBIDANUR CIRCLE, TALUK OFFICE, GOWRIBIDANUR -562 101 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI SHAFI UZAMA SON OF LATE ABDUL HAMEED PASHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDIG AT NO.7, MASIDI GALLI, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT NO.1 AND 2; SRI V.S.RAVINDRA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12392 OF 2014 DATED 07/10/2014 ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.12392 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner therein has filed this appeal.
2. The land Tribunal passed the final order dated 06.02.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner who had filed Form No.7, an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 read with Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking recalling of the said order. The said application was rejected. Questioning the same, the instant petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that once the Tribunal has passed an order, the Tribunal cannot exercise powers under Order-IX Rule-13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On considering the said order, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The provisions of Order-IX Rule-13 of C.P.C. cannot be put into play to recall the order of the Tribunal. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Tribunal in the manner known to law.
4. Under these facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
It is needless to state that the appellant is always at liberty to challenge the order of the Tribunal in the manner and in accordance with law.
Pending I.As. stands rejected.
Registry to return the original documents pertaining to the instant case, to the petitioner in terms of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj