Dismissed

Sayeda Ahmadi Sahabjadi v. Sayed Hussain Shah S/O Sayed Usman Shah

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2022RP/100012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition challenging an order disposing of a joint writ petition. The court held that the petition did not abate upon the death of one co-petitioner, as the others remained on record with no individual reliefs sought. No error was found in the impugned order, and time was granted to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Further four weeks time granted to file an appeal under Section 269 of the Panchayathraj Act.

Sayeda Ahmadi Sahabjadi Vs Sayed… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO.100012/2021 IN W.P.No.85731/2013 (GM-RES) C/W W.P.No.106150/2014 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SAYEEDA AHMADI SAHABJADI W/O. SAYED ALI SHAH, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MUNIRABAD DAM, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI D.L.LADKHAN ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SAYED HUSSAIN SHAH S/O SAYYED USMAN SHAH, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O MUNIRABAD DAM, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

SAYED KHALANDAR SHAH S/O SAYED USMAN SHAH,

¶13

¶14

AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O MUNIRABAD DAM, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

SAYYED KABIR SHAH S/O SAYYED USMAN SHAH, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O.MUNIRABAD DAM, DIST:KOPPAL.

¶16

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL,

¶17

ADHYAKSHA ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI & SMT.JOSHNA P.DHANAVE ADV. FOR R.1 & R3 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4 IS SERVED.)

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONDE, 1908 PRAYING THIS COURT TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.85731/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

: ORDER :

¶24

This review petition is filed seeking review of order dated 25.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.85731/ 2013.

¶25

Sri D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has contended that during pendency of the writ petition, one of the petitioners i.e., petitioner No.2 is dead and without bringing his legal representatives on record, the writ petition came to be disposed off. Hence, the writ petition would stand abated. Therefore he prays that, the order under review is to be recalled.

¶26

Per contra , Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, the writ petition was filed by three petitioners jointly and they have not sought for any individual relief. If one of the petitioners is dead, the writ petition will not abate. Therefore, there is no ground to consider the review petition and hence he sought for dismissal of the review petition.

¶27

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶29

perused the order passed in the writ petitions.

¶30

The order which is sought to review has been passed on 25.11.2019 in W.P.No.25731/2013 C/w W.P.No.106150/2014. The writ petitions were filed by three persons who are the sons of Sayyed Usman Shah. Even though said three persons have filed single petition, since they have common interest and they have not sought for any individual relief. Under Rule 7 of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977, if the petitioners have a common interest and they have not sought for any individual relief they can file single writ petition by paying single set of Court fee.

¶31

In this case, three persons have filed a writ

¶32

petition. One of the petitioners i.e., petitioner No.2 has died during pendency of the writ petition. His legal representatives have not been brought on record and the writ petitions are disposed of on 25.11.2019. Since other petitioners are on record, the writ petition will not abate. Therefore there is no error in the order

¶33

¶34

dated 25.11.2019. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to review the order dated 25.11.2019. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

¶35

This Court has granted four weeks time to the respondents in W.P.No.25731/2013 C/w W.P.No.106150/2014, who is petitioner in the present review petition to file appeal before the competent authority under Section 269 of the Panchayathraj Act. Since the present review petition is pending they have

¶36

not filed any appeal till today, hence further four weeks time is granted to the petitioner herein to file appeal from today.

¶37

In view of the disposal of the above review petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sayeda Ahmadi Sahabjadi v. Sayed Hussain Shah S/O Sayed Usman Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeda Ahmadi Sahabjadi v. Sayed Hussain Shah S/O Sayed Usman Shah

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

Ammanna S/O Awadhoot Odeyar Vs Siddappa S/O Basappa Ainapur

Belgaum District Hand Ball Association (R) Vs the Hand Ball Federation of India

Prashant S/O. Nageshrao Kulkarni Vs the Union of India

Shri B Shankrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Shankrappa Vs Smt. Sanna Hallamma

Akkawwa W/O Shivanand Parasannavar Vs Gadigewwa W/O Yallappa Divatagi