Disposed

Mr. Subbanna Gowda v. Mr. Ramanna Gowda

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021WP/5969/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an appellate order that vacated a stay order. The court held that intervention was inappropriate as the petitioner's application for condonation of delay was still pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with all necessary liberty and subject to all just exceptions in law.

Mr. Subbanna Gowda Vs Mr. Ramanna Gowda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 5969/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

¶9

MR. SUBBANNA GOWDA S/O LATE KOTI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 EYARS R/AT AREMBI HOUSE KOWKRADY VILLAGE KADABA TALUK D.K.-574221.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

¶14

1 . MR. RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE KOTI GOWDA

¶15

2 . MR. NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE KOTI GOWDA

¶16

3 . MR. RAGHAVA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE KOTI GOWDA

¶17

¶18

4 . MR. DARNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE KOTI GOWDA

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT AREMBI HOUSE KOWKRADY VILLAGE KADABA TALUK D.K.-574221.

¶20

5 . SMT. VIMALA AGED ABOUT 63 EYARS W/O HONNAPPA GOWDA R/AT DERAJE HOUSE BALLYA VILLAGE AND POST KADABA TALUK D.K.-574221.

¶21

(BY SMT. NEERAJAKARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R5 R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:26.02.2020 IN R.A.NO.5010/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K. MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K. AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.3 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioner is the appellant in R.A. No. 5010/2019 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, D.K., Mangaluru [for short, 'the appellate Court' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.02.2020, which reads as under:

¶28

"The IA. No. III filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

The IA. No. IV filed by the respondent No. 1

¶30

is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

¶31

The Memo filed by the respondent No. 1 on 04.02.2020 is disposed of.

¶32

Consequently, the interim order of Statusquo and Stay passed by this court on 07.08.2019 is hereby vacated.

¶33

The appellant is directed to prove the causes for delay in filing the present appeal by leading oral evidence on IA.No. II filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

¶34

The respondent No. 1 is permitted to apply for conversion of required portion of land in Sy.No. 29/1A1 of Kowkrady village for

¶35

¶36

construction of residential premises by obtaining necessary order/licence from the competent authority.

¶37

It is clarified that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to claim equity in the event of passing order against him in the present appeal on merits and all improvements done by the respondent No.1 are subject to the result of the present appeal."

¶38

The appellate Court has vacated the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner dismissing the petitioner’s application for stay in I.A. No.3 and allowing first respondent’s application for vacating essentially because the petitioner had to justify delay in filing the appeal.

¶39

It is presently submitted that the petitioner’s application I.A. No. 2 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed on 26.07.2021, and it is also submitted on behalf of the first respondent that in terms of liberty reserved, and

¶40

¶41

subject to the terms as stipulated by the appellate Court, the first respondent has obtained conversion and has commenced construction in the subject property. If the appellate Court has vacated the interim order granted at the first instance because it was granted without condoning the delay, this Court cannot intervene. If after the impugned order the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay is allowed condoning the delay, and the appeal is taken up for a decision on merits and if an interim arrangement is directed by the appellate Court, the petitioner must avail appropriate remedy and there cannot be intervention in the present proceedings.

¶42

The petition stands disposed of with necessary liberty but subject all just exceptions in law.

¶43

SD/JUDGE.

¶44

LRS.

Mr. Subbanna Gowda v. Mr. Ramanna Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Subbanna Gowda v. Mr. Ramanna Gowda

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

Sri M v Keshava Murthy Vs Sri G v Vasanthappa

Smt. Kempamma Vs Smt. Venkatamma

Mr. K K Shekar Vs Mr. K K Sathyanarayana

Mr Arun Anthoni Raj Vs Mr Anthoni Raj

Mr Anjinappa Vs Mr Lakshminarayanappa

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty Vs Smt. K. R. Lakshmamma