IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.39272/2018(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MRS. YVONNE VENNILA ROBERTS D/O LATE NAPOLEON ROBERTS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.91/C, 3RD MAIN, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560084.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MATHEW RAJ KALLIKANDAN S/O SRI. K.V.LAZAR, R/AT NO.16, 34/2934 VATAKARA POLICE STATION COMPOUND, KHOZILODI DISTRICT, KERALA-673101.
2. SRI. JOJO PAUL FATHERS NAME UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EJ CONCRETING TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD. HOUSE NO.26, GF ROSALIN ANTHONY NILAYAM, RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE CROSS, 1ST CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, CHIKKABANASWADI, BANGALORE-560084.
3. SRI.K.V. ANDREWS, FATHERS NAME UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.1028, PRIMROSE, 4TH CROSS, K.K.HALLI ROAD OPPOSITE ARJAY HATCHERIES HENNUR MAIN ROAD, THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560084.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ROSA PARAMEL, ADVOCATE) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 IN ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN I.A.NO.10 BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESIONS JUDGE IN (CCH-10) O.S.NO.9052/2012;
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff against the Order dated 17.07.2018 made in O.S. No. 9052/2012 posting the matter for arguments on I.A.No.8 without passing a speaking order on I.A.No.10.
2. The plaintiff filed suit for injunction in respect of suit schedule property. The defendants denied the plaint averments by filing written statement. When the matter was posted on 17.07.2018, advocate for plaintiff and defendants were present. Plaintiff’s advocate did not address the arguments on I.A.No.10. As plaintiff has not opted to lead evidence in the suit and in connected O.S. No.9054/2012 the Trial Court posted the matter for arguments holding that consideration of I.A.10 at this stage does not arise. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that I.A.No.10 was filed by the plaintiff for clubbing of O.S.No. 9054/2012 along with present suit mainly contending that in both the suits relief sought for injunction in respect of suit schedule property. The Trial Court has not considered the same.
4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, plaintiff has not addressed arguments on I.A.No.10. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in posting the matter without passing Orders on I.A.No.10.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, when the matter was posted for arguments on I.A.No.10, it was the duty of the Trial Court to consider the arguments of both parties and pass orders on the said application. Though counsel for plaintiff and defendants did not address arguments, the Trial Court ought to have decided the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff has already filed written arguments on I.A.No.10. If that is so, learned Judge ought to have passed the Orders instead of posting the matter for orders on I.A.No.8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.07.2018 is hereby quashed.
6. The Trial Court is directed to consider the written arguments filed on I.A.No.10 and pass orders in accordance with law. Both the parties are hereby directed to be present before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing and address arguments on I.A.No.10. The Trial Court shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm