On a preliminary hearing, the High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to set aside an order in a civil suit where the respondent, as a legal representative, sought a declaration of title without supporting pleadings or framed issues. The Court held no interference was warranted as the petitioner was unlikely to be affected.
The writ petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34133 of 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Goriyappa, Son of Papaiah, Aged about 63 years, Residing at T. Begur Village, Kasab Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. H.K.Kenchegowda, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Akkayyamma, Wife of Late Gopalaiah, Aged about 65 years, Residing at Talaghattapur, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District.
…RESPONDENT
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 11.11.2013 in O.S.No.79/2010 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, in so far as I.A.NO.III is concerned filed by the respondent herein under order VI Rule 17 of CPC., vide Annexure-A by issuing a writ of certiorari as illegal and etc;
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
civil suit. The plaintiff who had originally filed the suit had
died. The present respondent has come on record as his legal representative. After coming on record as the legal representative, the suit which was for bare injunction has been converted into a suit for declaration of title, in the plaintiff having chosen to incorporate an amended prayer to include the relief of declaration of title. There are no other pleadings incorporated in support of the prayer. The application has been allowed and the suit has progressed further. The petitioner
3
however did not choose to file any additional written statement.
It is also stated at the Bar that there are no additional issues framed with reference to the prayer for declaration of title. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.
If there are no pleadings filed in support of the prayer of the relief of declaration of title and if there is no issue framed, it is unlikely that the petitioner would be affected in any manner by such a relief being sought by the plaintiff, which is said to be without any basis. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference.
Insofar as the infirmities that are pointed out, they may be raised by the defendant at the appropriate time in the court below, which the Court is bound to look into. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference under Articles 226 and 227 is warranted when there are no pleadings in support of a prayer for declaration of title and no issues have been framed.
Whether the petitioner suffered any prejudice due to the application being allowed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Goriyappa
Smt. Akkayyamma
Andan Byrappa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
