IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.43829 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O. LATE JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HULIKATTE MADABAL HOBLI CHAKRABHAVI POST MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159 (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI R.SURESH S/O. RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A: OPPOSITE NIRMALA THEATRE KALYA GATE, MAGADI TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.N.DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.16 IN O.S.NO.754/2014 DATED 16.08.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI AT ANNEXURE – L AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a suit for declaration & possession in O.S.No.198/2010 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 16.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – L whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Magadi having rejected his application in I.A.No.16 filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 has refused to entertain his memo of instructions to be issued to the Commissioner for accomplishing the task. The contesting respondent-plaintiff has entered caveat through his counsel and resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having adverted to the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the order impugned herein is consistent with reasoning part of the judgment dated 20.07.2012 in the earlier W.P.No.33666/2011, a copy whereof is at Annexure – F.
3. The other reason for not granting indulgence in the matter is that the memo of instructions which the respondant has filed on 18.04.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E2 is comprehensive enough; justice can be meted out to both the parties, if the petitioner is permitted to press into service his sale deed dated 15.04.1985 which is now made a part of the record vide Ex.P6 before the Commissioner. However, the instructions remain intact.
It is needless to mention that the Commissioner shall advert to the sale deed at Ex.P6 after hearing both stake holders in the matter.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY