IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7372 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Y.S. GURURAJACHAR S/O LATE Y. SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.68, 19TH CROSS I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010.
2. Y.S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE Y.S. SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO. 2, 11TH ‘A’ CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
3. SMT. Y.S. SUMA W/O M.G. HEMANTH KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS NO.1882, 10TH MAIN 31ST CROSS, B S K 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560070.
(By Mr. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADV.) AND:
SMT. Y.S. CHANDRAPRABHA W/O LATE M.K. RANGANATH RAO AGED 60 YEARS NO. 90, YAMUNA NILAYA RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR BEHIND K K SCHOOL … PETITIONERS KADABAGERE BANGALORE-562130.
… RESPONDENT (By Mr. SHIVARAJU T.M. ADV., (ABSENT)) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 17.1.2015 in FDP No.213/2012 passed by the learned XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore vide Ann-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.A.Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge by which objection preferred by the petitioner to the report submitted by the Commissioner has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that respondent had filed FDP No.213/12 before the Trial Court seeking the revision of the suit A, B, C & D schedule properties as per preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.5508/2009. The Trial Court by an order dated 08.01.2014, appointed the Commissioner for effecting the division of the suit A, B, C & D properties as per preliminary decree. On 06.09.2014, the Commissioner appointed by the Court filed a report. The petitioner filed an objection to the report. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.01.2015, has rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and has accepted the report.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record, it is evident that the order passed by the Trial Court is bereft of reasons and in a cryptic and cavalier manner, the report submitted by the Commissioner. The impugned order therefore suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a speaking order.
Accordingly, he petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS