Allowed

Sri v. Jayaram v Sri Narasimhaiah

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2022WP/23806/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order dismissing an application for non-prosecution. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Trial Court directed to reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders after hearing parties.

Sri v Jayaram Vs Sri Narasimhaiah — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.23806 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI V JAYARAM S/O LATE A VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.90, 2^ND STAGE, KODANDARAMA GARDEN JEEVANAHALLI COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560005.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O POLLAPPA @ MUNISWAMAPPA R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. D.K. GANGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED ON

¶14

¶15

I.A.NO.15 IN O.S.NO.340/2011 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2021, passed in O.S.No.340/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶20

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.340/2011 for the relief of specific performance of contract. In the said suit respondent appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter Trial Court framed the issues. Petitioner was examined as PW-1 and closed his side.

¶21

The case was posted for respondent's evidence. Respondent was examined as DW-1. During the

¶22

¶23

course of cross-examination, DW-1 has denied the signature on the vakalathnama and reply notice. In view of the denial of signature, petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to strike out the written statement of the defendant. The respondent has opposed the said application. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to address arguments on the said application. The Trial Court, without adjourning the matter, has proceeded to dismiss the application for nonprosecution. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for non-prosecution. He

¶26

¶27

further submits that though the petitioner has sought time to address arguments, the Trial Court ought to have granted an adjournment, instead, has proceeded to dismiss the application for non-prosecution. He further submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is perverse and without application of mind. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner.

¶29

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit respondent has filed written statement.

¶31

¶32

Thereafter petitioner was examined and closed his side. During the cross-examination of the respondent, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has confronted the vakalathnama executed by the respondent. The respondent has denied his signature on the vakalathnama and also the signature appearing in the reply notice. In view of the denial of the signature by respondent on vakalathnama and reply notice, petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 CPC to strike out the written statement filed by the respondent. The case was listed on 10.12.2021. The counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time to address arguments on the said application. The Trial Court, without considering the request made by counsel for the petitioner, has dismissed the application for non-prosecution. The Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for non-prosecution.

¶33

¶34

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The writ petition is allowed.

¶37

The impugned order dated 10.12.2021, passed in O.S.No.340/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, is set aside.

¶38

The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner after hearing the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

Sri v. Jayaram v Sri Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Jayaram 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

Sri. M. Papanna Vs M/S. Valmark Homes

Smt Manjula Vs Smt Pillamma

Smt M Anitha Vs Sri T N Kosalram

Smt Bhagyalatha Vs Sri J R Ajoy Kumar

Sri. B.S. Nagendra Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mrs Uma Amarnath Vs Mrs Pancharathnamma