Partly allowed

Smt. Nagarathnamma v. Sri. Narasimhaiah

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/52901/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court found an error apparent on the face of the record regarding unadverted grounds. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Application remitted for fresh consideration within two months.

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Sri. Narasimhaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.52901 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT YALADABAGI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT YALDABAGI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.383/2012 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA AS CONTAINED UNDER ANN-E AND DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner being the defendant in a declaration & injunction suit in O.S.No.383/2012, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 18.9.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby the learned Civil Judge, Sira, having rejected her application in I.A.No.V filed u/o VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, has declined to reject the plaint.

¶19

After service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel, vehemently opposes the writ petition arguing in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been predicated.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the grounds urged by the petitioner in her application in I.A.No.5 have not been duly adverted to by the learned Judge of the court below whilst making the impugned order; that is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court, to set the injustice at naught.

¶21

¶22

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; impugned order is invalidated; the subject application is remitted for consideration afresh at the hands of the learned Judge of the court below within an outer limit of two months, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.

¶23

Costs made easy.

¶24

Sd/JUDGE

¶25

cbc

Smt. Nagarathnamma v. Sri. Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagarathnamma v. Sri. Narasimhaiah

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 G Krishna Vs Smt Pushpalatha

Mrs Surekhakini Vs Maruishka Park Apartment

Smt v Kamalamma Vs Smt Saraswathi

Smt Sudha Shivarame Gowda Vs Gopal Reddy

Chikkappoji Vs Sri Venkatesh

Sri M P Prakash Vs Sri M N Bhogaiah