IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 7897/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESHAPPA S/O SRI. GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TEACHER, H.K.ROAD SHIRALKOPPA TOWN SHIKARIPUR TQ., SHIMOGGA DIST.,-577 427.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
PATTAN PANCHAYTH SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER PIN-577 427.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2017 MADE ON I.A. U/C 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.121/2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC SHIKARIPUR BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND THE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION (ANNEXURE-D).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAREING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.121/2016 and same has been instituted for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/ defendant. Though respondent / defendant was served with suit summons they did not appear. Subsequently, an application came to be filed to condone the delay in filing the written statement and permission was sought to file the written statement. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff before trial Court had submitted that said application came to be allowed on costs. Hence, trial Court by order dated 03.01.2017 allowed the said application on payment of cost of Rs.500/- and received the written statement on record. Said order has been assailed in the present writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that though objections was not filed to the application filed by defendants, it was vehemently opposed in the oral argument and as such, he seeks for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order. However, order sheet of trial Court would speak otherwise. Same would disclose that learned counsel had submitted before trial Court that he has “No Objection” for allowing the said application. In that view of the matter, trial Court had rightly allowed the application and permitted the defendant to file the written statement. The cause shown by the defendant came to be accepted and plaintiff has been compensated by awarding costs. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of plaintiff to contend that learned counsel, who represented him before trial Court without authorization had submitted his ‘no objection’ for allowing the application.
There is no other good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR