Disposed

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna v. Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/104478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order under Section 151 CPC regarding deposit of costs in a partition suit. While noting a dispute over receipt of appellate court costs, the Court directed respondents to deposit Rs. 5,000 to enable the trial court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to deposit Rs. 5,000 before the trial court to enable proceeding with the matter.

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna Vs Smt. Eramma… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.104478/2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. BHARAMAPPA S/O LATE GOWLERA REVANNA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: TML EMPLOYEE, R/O: TML QUARTERS, TARANAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI

¶9

.. PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE SOMAPPA AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: TARANAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI

¶13

2 . SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SOMAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: TARANAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI

¶14

3 . SMT. VEERAMMA W/O LATE VEERANNA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: TARANAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI

¶15

4 . SRI. RAJU SURESHKUMAR S/O LATE VEERANNA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: TARANAGAR VILLAGE, TAL: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI (BY SRI. PRAKASHGOUDA N. HATTI AND SMT. METI RAJESHWARI, ADVS. )

¶16

.. RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29.09.2015, PASSED ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS.NO.119/2007 BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur, in O.S. No.19/2007 on application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed O.S. NO.119/2007 for partition and separate possession. The suit has been dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge in RA No.10/2013. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012 and remanded the matter to the trial Court and also allowed the application for impleading the respondent on cost of Rs.2,000/-.

¶23

¶24

Thereafter the respondents has filed an application permitting them to deposit the cost before the trial Court. The trial Court has allowed that application permitting to deposit the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has not received the cost which was ordered by the first Appellate Court and he also contended that as per the order passed by the first Appellate Court, the respondents had to deposit the cost within one month. They have not deposited the cost and the petitioners have not received the amount. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the respondents/plaintiffs have deposited the cost before the Court on 29.09.2015. The same has been received by the respondent.

¶26

This aspect of the matter is disputed by the

¶27

petitioner.

¶28

This Court on 09.04.2021 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that, whether the costs amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by the Advocate

¶29

¶30

appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that, neither himself nor his counsel has received the cost as ordered by the first Appellate Court.

¶31

Be that as it may. In the interest of justice, the plaintiffs/respondents are directed to deposit Rs.5,000/before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the mater only after deposit of Rs.5,000/- by the plaintiffs and permit the petitioner/defendant to withdraw that amount.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

kmv

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna v. Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna v. Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

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

K. Ashok Kumar Shetty, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Anand S/O. Gangadharswamy Tavagmath Vs the State of Karanataka

Shiddappa B Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nissar S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Jafar Vs Farukh S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Killedar @ Mulla

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy Vs the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

South Konkan Education Society Vs Maruti S/O Appayya Kadam