Dismissed

Smt. Jayamani v. Sri P Ramesh

Karnataka HC26 Aug 2014WP/14126/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 seeking expedited disposal of a delayed civil suit. The court held that the trial court is charged with control of proceedings and should follow the Karnataka Case Flow Management Rules, 2005 to effectuate disposal forthwith. The petition was dismissed as the prayer for a court-mandated timeframe was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without imposing a specific timeframe on the subordinate court.

Smt. Jayamani Vs Sri P Ramesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 14126 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Jayamani, Wife of Sri. V.A.S.Mani, Aged about 64 years, Residing at No.103, ‘Sabarish’, I Cross, HAL III Stage, Bangalore – 560 075. Represented by her duly constituted Attorney Sri. V.A.S.Mani.

¶9

…PETITIONER (By Shri. S. Subramanya, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri. P. Ramesh, Son of Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda, Aged about 44 years, Residing at No.4, 5^th Cross, 9^th Main, N.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 027.

¶12

¶13

Sri. N. Shivaprasad, Son of Sri. C.Nanjappa, Aged about 51 years, Residing at No.415, 6^th ‘A’ Main Road, HRBR Layout, Kalyana Nagar II Block, Bangalore – 560 043. 3. Sri. G.K.Raghurama Reddy, Son of Sri. G.P.Krishnappa, Aged about 59 years, Residing at Garvebhavi Palya Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. 4. Sri. G. Jaimuni Rao, Son of Sri. Gangoji Rao, Age not known to plaintiff, Residing at D-1/1, Hayes Court, Richmond Town, Bangalore – 560 025. 5. Sri. C.G.Dilip, Advocate, Father’s name not known to Plaintiff, age not known to plaintiff, Registration No.KAR 2588/2004, No.826/A, I Floor, 5^th Main, Service Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (Notice to respondents dispensed with)

¶14

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records in O.S.No.461/2008, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and to direct the Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore to expeditiously decide the suit in O.S.No.461/2008 within in timeframe as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶16

This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Notice to respondents is dispensed with having regard to

¶20

the circumstances of the case.

¶21

The petitioner’s only grievance is that the pending suit in which he is the plaintiff has been delayed. In that, the case was posted for final arguments in December 2012 and to date, there is no progress made. In that, one or the other application is sought to be filed by the defendants and this has resulted in the matter being adjourned from time to time, fruitlessly, and since the plaintiff is a cardiac patient and her husband who is the Power of Attorney Holder who is conducting the case is

¶22

¶23

also well into old age, the petitioner pleads that there be a direction to the court below to expedite the proceedings and to complete the proceedings within a reasonable time.

¶24

Insofar as the control of the proceedings is concerned, it is the Trial Court which is in charge and the prayer for fixing a time frame by the petitioner on the footing that there has been inordinate delay in the disposal of the proceedings, it is to be pointed out that the Trial Court is bound to follow the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 and if there has been a lapse in this regard, the Trial Court would do well to adhere to the scheme of the said Rules, which would automatically require that the suit be disposed of forthwith, in terms of the Rules.

¶25

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

Smt. Jayamani v. Sri P Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayamani v. Sri P Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ananda Nayari Vs Sri Seetharama Nayari

Ms v Jayalakshmi Vs Sri Shyamlal R Chabria

Shri B T Bore Gowda Vs Shri T C Lobo

Smt Narayanamma Vs Sri. H.M. Krishnappa

Smt Vijaya Dhariwal Vs Eerathippaiah

Javaraiah Vs Sannadevamma Dead by Her Lrs