Dismissed

Smt Dhanalakshmi Raju v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2022WP/5826/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to summon the A.R.O., BBMP. Upholding the trial court's judgment that the proposed witness had been cross-examined earlier, the court found the writ devoid of merit and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Smt Dhanalakshmi Raju Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

W.P. NO.5826 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI RAJU SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶8

ARE ALREADY THERE ON THE RECORDS.

¶9

SRI. M.S RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶10

2 . SRI. M.S AMRUTARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶11

3 . SRI. VENKATESHWARA RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶12

4 . SMT. MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶13

5 . SMT. TARAKESHWARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶14

6 . SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶15

SL. NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE THE SONS AND DAUGHER OF LATE M.S RAJU SL. NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE REPREENTED

¶16

¶17

BY THEIR PA HOLDER SRI M.S AMRUTARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.55, DICKENSON ROAD BENGALURU -560042.

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. M.S.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU- 560002.

¶22

….RESPONDENT

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.16086/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XIII CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in OS No.16086 of 2006 on the file of the XIII City Civil Judge, Bengaluru challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 on the I.A.No.15.

¶27

The relevant facts of the case for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering

¶28

¶29

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.15 under Order XVI Rule 1 Section 151 of CPC to summon the A.R.O, BBMP, J.C.Nagar Ward Office, Bengaluru and permit him to examine the said witnesses. The said application was resisted by the defendant. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 22.02.2022, dismissed I.A.No.15, filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this writ petition.

¶30

Heard, Sri. Mohan M.S., learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner, who drew the attention of this Court to cross-examination of DW1 and submitted that the perusal of the deposition of DW1 would indicate that the only A.R.O., BBMP, the competent person to state about the revenue sites. He submits that the said finding recorded by the Trial Court requires interference in this writ petition.

¶31

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I carefully considered the

¶32

¶33

evidence recorded by the trial Court, wherein, it is an undisputed fact and the suit is filed by the plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction and the suit is of the year 2006. Perusal of the findings recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the DW1 was cross-examined by the plaintiff at the length and therefore, the Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that there is no necessity to summon the A.R.O., BBMP (Proposed witness) to adduce evidence in the matter.

¶34

4. Considering the finding recorded by the Trial Court

¶35

as per para 4 of the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Since, the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to dispose the suit within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Smt Dhanalakshmi Raju v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dhanalakshmi Raju v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

D v Jyothi Vs the Chief Officer

Smt Yashoda Venkatesh Vs M/S Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd.

Sri. Omkar Nayaka Vs Sri. D. N. Erappanayaka

Sri Munireddy Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma

M J Babu Vs Hanumantha Reddy

Mr. Lokesh Vs Purushothama Karkera