Dismissed

N Subramanyam S/O. Late N. v. Mallamma W/O. Sunkappa

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2019WP/62911/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking to quash an order dismissing an application under Sections 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held the petition was misconceived and mischievous as the impugned matter had been disposed of by the Supreme Court. The writ petition was dismissed with directions to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate reliefs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate reliefs.

N Subramanyam S/O. Late N. Vs Mallamma W/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 62911/2012 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N SUBRAMANYAM S/O. LATE N. HANUMANTHAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HINDU, TRADER R/O. 1^ST CROSS, S.N. PET, BALLARI

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B. R. NATARAJ FOR SRI.HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MALLAMMA W/O. SUNKAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶13

GANGAMMA W/O. BILIBAYAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶14

B, GADILINGAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶15

G. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. LATE DEVAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶16

¶17

K. SIDDAPPA S/O. DEVANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶18

MAREMMA W/O. DEVANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶19

V. HONNURAPPA S/O. BUSSHAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶20

R.V. HANUMAIAH S/O. HONURAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶21

DEVENDRA S/O. HONNURAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶22

MAREMMA W/O. DEVANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶23

SRINIVAS S/O. NEELAKANTAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶24

POMPAPATHI S/O. BILIBAYAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶25

V. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. DODDA THIPPAIAH AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶26

¶27

J. HONNURAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶28

M.M. TRILOCHANA SHATRI S/O. KANNAIAH AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶29

THIPPAIAH S/O. RUDRAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶30

PAKEERAMMA S/O. WARD HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶31

SUNKANNA S/O. PEDDANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶32

ADEPPA S/O. ANJINAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶33

SANNA THIPPAIAH S/O. H. LINGAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶34

K. PADMAVATHI W/O. K. SIDDANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI.

¶35

¶36

SIDDAMMA W/O. LATE CHIDANANDAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. 23. MUTHALAMMA W/O. ERANNA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY. 24. H. SANNA RANGANNA S/O. PAKEERAMMA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. 25. HANUMAKKA W/O. HONNURAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. 26. V. PARASURAM S/O. LATE SANNA THIPPAIAH AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. 27. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. 28. JAGADISH S/O. VEERAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI.

¶37

¶38

YERRISWAMY S/O. LATE SUNKAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18^TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI.

¶39

MALLESHI S/O. LATE BILIBAYAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NEAR BADARINARAYANA TEMPLE, 18TH WARD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI.

¶40

M.K. PURUSHOTHAM S/O. LATE KAMALANABHAN AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER R/O. CANTONMENT, NETAJI NAGAR, NO.35, MIG, III CROSS, BALLARI.

¶41

... RESPONDENTS

¶42

(R1, R2, R4 TO R6, R9, R10, R12 TO R17, R19 TO R30 – SERVED; PETITION ABATED AS AGAINST R8; PETITION DISMISSED AS AGAINST R3; NOTICE TO R7, R8, R11 AND R30 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶43

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT BELLARY IN CRL. MISC.NO.25/2008 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL. MISC. CASE NO.25/2008

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Heard the learned counsel Sri. B. R. Nataraj on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar.

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari in Civil Misc. Case No.25/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the holder of the agreement executed by respondent No.31 and he would contend that respondents No.1 to 20 are the judgment debtors and respondent No.31 is the decree holder and the other respondents are all alienees and that similarly respondent No.31 had also entered into an agreement with the petitioner and that according to the terms of the said agreement/arrangement, the respondent No.31 was required to, not to withdraw the appeal or compromise or enter into a compromise with other respondents

¶50

¶51

without notice and concurrence of the petitioner. On these and other grounds the said petition has been preferred invoking the provisions of Section 47 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶52

The trial Court after taking note of the fact that SLP’s are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court and also taking note of the reliefs that have been prayed for by the petitioner, has held that the application is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to obtain any declaration upholding or declaring his rights and also the matter being seized of by the Apex Court, the Court below was pleased to dismiss the application.

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner would place on record the copies from the website of the Hon’ble Apex Court relating to the case status in the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.19510-19529/2000 and the other matters have been compromised and appeals have been disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties

¶54

¶55

with the observation that the compromise be placed on record within a week.

¶56

On a bare reading of the above, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to dispose of the appeals after recording the statements and submissions made by the counsels. It is contended by the petitioner that, as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, parties have not placed on record the compromise deed and if such compromise deed has been placed, he would have been at an advantageous position to initiate action and he would submit that, in view of the fraud played, the instant application ought to be allowed.

¶57

Be that as it may. The instant writ petition is not only misconceived, but is also highly mischievous. In the hierarchical system, the Courts are required to and are bound by the orders passed by the superior Court. In the instant case, the appeals have been heard and disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that view

¶58

¶59

of the matter, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he may approach the Hon’ble Apex Court for appropriate reliefs.

¶60

With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

gab

N Subramanyam S/O. Late N. v. Mallamma W/O. Sunkappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Subramanyam S/O. Late N. v. Mallamma W/O. Sunkappa

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

Bharamappa S/O. Janagappa Jogi, Vs Siddappa S/O. Laxman Tapashi

Narendra B S/O Veerappa Vs the Managing Director

T Kaira Ali Saheb S/O Mohiddin Saheb, Vs Somappa S/O Channayya Naik

Chinnavva W/O Ningappa Kittur, Vs Guruprakash S/O Veerayya Kochalapurmath

Kumar S/O Lingaraj Balehosur Vs Basavaraj S/O Lingaraj Balehosur and Ors.

Leelavati Ramachandra Hegde, Vs Shankar Narayan Ganapati Hegde