Quashed

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna v. S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2021WP/145294/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Relying on apex court judgments, the Court held the lower order defective in law and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the impugned findings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.01.2020 on I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 34/2018 was quashed and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the findings recorded therein.

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna Vs S. Rajashekar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

W.P. No. 145294/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O BHIMANNA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SINGANAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583 282.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.M. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

S. RAJASHEKHAR S/O SHANMUKHAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: SINGANAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583 282.

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2020 ON I.A. NO. 3 IN O.S. NO. 34/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GANGAVATHI & ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is directed against the impugned

¶20

order dated 27.01.2020 on I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 34/2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gangavathi whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rejected by the trial Court.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order.

¶22

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims including the contentions urged in the present writ petition, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity occasioning failure of justice and warranting interference by this Court as held by the apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 . It is however, made clear that all rival contentions by both sides

¶23

¶24

are kept open to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded by it in the impugned order.

¶25

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition

¶26

stands disposed of.

¶27

SD/JUDGE

¶28

bvv

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna v. S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna v. S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mumatazbegum W/O Babusab Jamadar Vs Vazirsab S/O Dadamiya Jamadar

Shekappa Kariyappa Benakannavar, Vs Smt. Mamatazabegam

Smt. Neelam W/O Oshripad Betgeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Mohanlal v Jain S/O Vanechand Jain Vs Sri.Ballari Prabhu S/O Basanna