The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order refusing to strike out defamatory paragraphs from a plaint in a partition suit, holding factual allegations require cross-examination.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.2022 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI. S.C. DINESH KUMAR S/O SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.81/1, "BELAKU" 2ND FLOOR, 18TH MAIN J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 006 …PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 R/AT NO.81/1, "BELAKU" 18TH MAIN, J.C.NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 006 …RESPONDENTS
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 19TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.2664/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner's wife, Late Gangothri and Lakshmi (respondent No.1-plaintiff) are sisters. Gangothri passed away on 28.11.2016. Plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.2644/2017 seeking declaration that she is entitled for 1/2 share in the Suit Schedule Property and further declaration that petitioner has no right in the Suit Schedule Property. Petitioner has filed an application to strike out pleadings in Paragraphs No.7, 8 and 9 in the plaint. The said application has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3
is to declare that the petitioner has no right in the Suit Schedule Property. Averments in Paragraphs No.7, 8 and 9 are allegations on facts and the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the petitioner has right of cross-examination. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint in an inheritance suit are scandalous and defamatory enough to be struck out.
Whether the learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the petitioner has a right of cross-examination regarding factual allegations.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. S.C. DINESH KUMAR
1. SMT. S.N. LAKSHMI
2. SRI. E.M. NAGARAJU
3. SMT. E.N. GAYATHRI
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
