The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a plaintiff challenging an emergent notice order in a redemption suit. Due to delay and pending proceedings in the lower court, the High Court held no relief warranted.
None. The petition was disposed of due to delay and pending proceedings in the lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VENKATASWAMY S/O DODDAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT GEEDHARAPALYA VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK PIN CODE - 561 205
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
PIN CODE - 561 205
BOTH ARE R/AT GEEDHARAPALYA VILLAGE TUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK PIN CODE - 561 205
3
NOS.5 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO.91/1, 9TH MAIN ROAD ATTURU LAYOUT YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 106
4
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN AND TALUK PIN CODE - 561 203
…..RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE -A DATED 08.09.2021 ORDER IN I.A.NO.1 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE ANDD JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA WHICH IS PENDING IN O.S.NO.354/2021 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the emergent notice order passed by the Court below on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.,
5
properties. The petitioner - plaintiff claims that defendant No.1 is a Mortgagee and even though defendant No.1 - Mortgagee has no title in respect of the schedule properties, has meddled with the property. The apprehension of the petitioner - plaintiff is that defendant No.1 has already sold a portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.15.
6
the present petitioner - plaintiff when the suit is pending for consideration will not arise. It is stated across the bar that all contesting respondents are served with notice and some of the respondents are placed exparte . If that is so, it is open for the petitioner - plaintiff to press for hearing before the Trial Court.
With these above observations, this petition
stands disposed of .
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the interim notice order in a redemption mortgage suit could be entertained after a significant delay and without evidence of fresh alienation.
Whether to grant relief in a writ petition where the underlying suit remains pending and notice has been issued to respondents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. VENKATASWAMY
SMT. VENKATALAKSHAMMA
SMT. Avalamma
SRI. G.V. MUNIRAJU
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
SMT. DASAMMA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
