Dismissed

Shri Shekar G v. Shri v Seetharam

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022WP/14416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition filed by a plaintiff challenging an order of the trial court requiring compliance with office objections due to lack of produced documents. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order dismissing the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the writer to file a fresh suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh suit if so advised.

Shri Shekar G Vs Shri v Seetharam — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

W.P. NO.14416 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI SHEKAR G S/O LATE S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 6^TH C MAIN ROAD, SHRIKANTESHWARA NAGAR NEW LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GOWHARUNNISA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . SHRI V SEETHARAM S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶12

2 . SMT. LAVANYA T R D/O V SEETHARAM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶13

R1 and 2 are R/AT NO.1760 6^TH MAIN ROAD, ‘D’ BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010

¶14

3 . SHRI MUKESH MITTAL S/O GAJANAND MITTAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MITTAL BASERA

¶15

¶16

SADAHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560 080

¶17

4 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPT M.S. BLDG, BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

5 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DIST BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

6 . THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 009.

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; SMT. ROOPA K R, HCGP FOR R4 TO 6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN FR/OS.NO.74 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE COURT TO REGISTER THE FR NO.74 OF 2019 OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT BY OVERRULING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE OFFICE AND PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Fr No.74 of 2019

¶26

on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli,

¶27

¶28

challenging the order dated 28.02.2019, regarding the compliance of the office objections.

¶29

Brief facts are that, respondent No.1 claims to be the owner in possession of the schedule land in terms of the grant order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 08.07.1978. The respondent No.1 has executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the petitioner (as per Annexure- A to the Writ Petition). The Special Deputy Commissioner, initiated proceedings against the respondent No.1 in RRT(2)N(A)/CR/39/2007-08 and disposed of the same holding that the grant made in respect of respondent 1 is legal and thereafter, respondent No.1 has entered into Agreement of Sale dated 23.01.2019 with the prospective buyer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed FR/OS No.74 of 2019 against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing the registered Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, the trial Court has raised a objection and directed the petitioner to produce relevant documents for compliance of the office objections (Annexure-G).

¶30

¶31

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this Writ Petition.

¶32

I have heard Smt. Gowharunnisa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned HCGP for respondents 4 to 6.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of writ papers would indicate that the petitioner has filed suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction based on the grant order made by the respondentState. However, the plaintiff has not produced relevant documents before the trial Court to establish the right in respect of schedule land is concerned. The trial Court raised objections which requires to be complied with by the petitioner/plaintiff and in that view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the revenue proceedings are pending consideration before the Tahasildar-respondent No.6, however, I do not find illegality or the perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶34

¶35

After completion of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seek liberty file fresh suit in respect of cause of action is concerned. However, same is resisted by the respondents. Taking into consideration the factual aspects of the case that, the plaintiff has filed the suit, which is incomplete and without relevant documents and, therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file fresh suit, if so advised.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Shri Shekar G v. Shri v Seetharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shekar G v. Shri v Seetharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkataramappa Vs Sri P Jaganmohan Reddy

Dr N Ramamurthy Vs Smt Maheshwari

Shivaram @ Shiva Reddy Vs Sri Ashwath Narayana Reddy

Bhoovaraha Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Vs Tirumalai B R

S Subramaniyan Vs S Shivakumar

Mr Ali Asker Vembala Vs a G Mohunvelu