Dismissed

Smt. Savita W/O Srinivas Raichur v. Sri. Gurushiddappa Gangappa Akki

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021WP/103765/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a conditional order of the first appellate Court. The court held that since the underlying writ petitions on which the condition depended were dismissed, the challenge to the conditional paragraph did not survive consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the Final Decree Proceedings in four months.

Smt. Savita W/O Srinivas Raichur Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 103765/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAVITA W/O SRINIVAS RAICHUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: LAXMI VENKATESHWAR MEDICAL STORES, NEAR KALMATH,GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

KAVITHA D/O VEERANNA BAGALKOTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PRATHAMASHETTI ONI, NEAR GUJJAR BASTI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. GURUSHIDDAPPA GANGAPPA AKKI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS, R/O: DOOR NO.379,10TH A MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶14

SMT.PUSHPADEVI W/O AMRUTLAL SURANA, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: PUSHKAR AGARBATHI, KANCHAGAR ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

SMT.SUNANDA W/O VEERANNA BAGALKOTI, AGE: 57 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: PRATHAMASHETTI ONI, NEAR GUJJAR BASTI,HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

SRI.BASAVARAJ GANGAPPA BAGALKOTI,

¶17

¶18

AGE: 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KANCHAGAR ONI, HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

SRI.MANTESH GANGAPPA BAGALKOTI, AGE: 49 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KANCHAGAR ONI, HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR GANGAPPA AKKI, AGE: 60 YEARS,OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: PRATHAMASHETT ONI, HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.

¶21

SRI.BASAVARAJ GANGAPPA AKKI, AGE: 59 YEARS,OCC: SERVICE, R/O: PRATHAMASHETT ONI, HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.

¶22

SRI.SHANKARAPPA GANGAPPA AKKI, AGE: 53 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PRATHAMASHETT ONI, HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.

¶23

RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;; R3 TO R8 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE OPERATVE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2018 IN MISC. APPEAL NO.18/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-"J" AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.24 AS PRAYED FOR VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" & ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed on I.A. No. 24 in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18/2017 by the learned 5^th Addl. Dist. Judge, Dharwad, in so far as it relates to the second paragraph of the operative portion of the impugned order.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order.

¶31

The material on record indicates that the petitioners were appellants in M.A. No. 18/2017 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 09.06.2017 passed on I.A. No. 24 in F.D.P. No. 25/2000 on the file of the learned First Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Hubballi, whereby the said application was dismissed.

¶32

The material on record further indicates that at the time of preferring the aforesaid appeal in M.A. No. 18/2017

¶33

¶34

by the petitioners before the first appellate Court, W.P. Nos. 114484-85/2015 was pending before this Court which also arise out of the said F.D.P. No. 25/2000. Under these circumstances, in view of pendency of the aforesaid W.P. Nos. 114484-85/2015 before this Court, the first appellate

¶35

Court passed the following order.

¶36

“Appeal is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/payable to the bidder/ respondent.

¶37

The order passed on I.A. No. 24 dated 9.6.2017 in F.D.P. No. 25/2000 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi is hereby set aside for time being on condition further proceedings shall not be continued for a period of two months from today. Because the spouse of the appellant agitating their right in W.P. Nos.114484/2015 & 114485/2015 shall prosecute with proper zeal. In case succeeding in writ proceedings, the successful bidder herein shall be refunded of the price amount along with 18% p.a. interest compounded half yearly. Said amount of interest shall be borne by the parties of the execution petition to the extent of their right and interest. In case the writ petitioner not succeeding sale proceedings shall be completed without causing any delay.”

¶38

¶39

By final order dated 06.09.2021, the aforesaid W.P.

¶40

Nos. 114484-85/2015 was dismissed by this Court and consequently, the present petition in which the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court in M.A. No. 18/2017 only in so far as it relates to paragraph no. 2 does not survive for consideration. In this context, it is relevant to note, by the impugned order, the first appellate Court allowed the aforesaid appeal in M.A. No. 18/2017 filed by the petitioners herein and set aside the order on I.A. No. 24 dated 09.06.2017 passed in F.D.P. No. 25/2000 subject to the condition that the further proceedings in the said F.D.P. No. 25/2000 would not be continued for a period of two months since W.P. Nos. 114484-85/2015 was pending before this Court. Under these circumstances, since the limited challenge made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is with regard to the condition imposed in the impugned order passed by the first appellate court qua W.P. Nos. 114484-85/2015, in view of the disposal of the said

¶41

¶42

writ petitions by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2021,

¶43

the limited challenge to the second paragraph of the impugned order qua the said writ petitions before this Court does not survive for consideration any longer.

¶44

Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Trial Court is directed to dispose of the Final Decree Proceedings in four months.

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

bvv

Smt. Savita W/O Srinivas Raichur v. Sri. Gurushiddappa Gangappa Akki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita W/O Srinivas Raichur v. Sri. Gurushiddappa Gangappa Akki

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

Shekappa S/O Mallappa Govindanavar, Vs the Managing Director, Hescom, Hubli.

Hanamanta S/O.Yallappa Arakeri Vs the General Manager

Sri.Shivayya S/O. Mallayya Koppad Vs Parvatavva W/O. Channaveeragouda Patil

Smt.K. Yamunarao W/O Late Shri.K. Sarvottamrao Vs Shri. K. Ananthakrishnarao

Sri.Chandrashekar S/O Tammanna @Tammappa Halakatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa S/O.Shivappa Kaleri Vs State of Karnataka