Allowed

Shri.Sagar Devid v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023WP/101056/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The Court held that the rejection of applications for discharge of guardianship and subsequent correction was hyper-technical. Consequently, the Court allowed the applications for discharge of guardianship and correction under Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 01.10.2016 and 30.12.2016 were set aside. The applications I.A.Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 2016 were allowed. The petitioner was permitted to make corrections.

Shri.Sagar Devid Vs the Branch Manager — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101056 OF 2017 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.SAGAR DEVID S/O MAHESH KELAGIMANI @ HAWALDAR AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., GOKAK BY ITS SR.DN.MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

SMT.SUJATA W/O PUNNAPPA MADAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ZANGATIHAL, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SMT.SHAMALA W/O MAHESH KELAGIMANI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶16

KUMARI.PRIYANKA D/O MAHESH KELAGIMANI, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶19

SMT.NATHANEEL W/O NAGAPPA KELAGIMANI, SINCE DIED AND HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R2 TO R4, 6 & 7.

¶20

RATANAWWA W/O NATHANEEL KELAGIMANI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶21

SHRI.SHAM S/O NATHAEEL KELAGIMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶22

SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER/GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R R MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED; R4, 6, 7 ARE LR’S OF R5 D/W)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:QUASH THE ORDERS DATED:01.10.2016 AND 30.12.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T BELAGAVI ON I.A.N.I, II AND III IN M.V.C NO.2331/2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-'G' AND 'H' BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.I, II AND III IN M.V.C. NO.2331/2004 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is directed against the impugned common order on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 dated 01.10.2016 and impugned order on I.A.No.3/2016 dated 30.12.2016 passed in MVC No.2331/2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T. at Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner were rejected by the trial Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶32

counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶33

The material on record discloses that the petitioner herein is claimant No.2 in MVC No.2331/2004 in which his mother is petitioner No.1 and his sister is petitioner No.3. Petitioners No.4, 5 and 6 are the parents and brother of the deceased Mahesh Kelaginmani, father of the petitioner on account of whose demise in fatal road accident the aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner and other claimants.

¶34

The material on record indicates that the aforesaid

¶35

claim petition in which present petitioner was arrayed as petitioner No.2 was filed when the petitioner herein was minor,

¶36

¶37

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶38

aged about 8 years and represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt.Shyamala, wife of deceased Mahesh Kelaginmani. By judgment and award dated 23.04.2005, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed payment of compensation in favour of the claimants and further directed that certain sums of money should be kept in the name of the petitioner till he attains majority. After attaining majority, along with his mother the petitioner filed applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 seeking discharge of guardianship and permission to proceed in his own capacity. Subsequently, after realizing that there were certain typographical errors in the applications and affidavits, petitioner filed one more application-I.A.No.3/2016 seeking correction/rectification of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 referred to supra. All the applications having been rejected by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶39

A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 passed on I.A.No.3/2016 by the Tribunal will indicate that the Tribunal has adopted a hyper technical approach and has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to seek correction/rectification of the arrears that had

¶40

¶41

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶42

crept in the applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that I.A.No.3/2016 filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

¶43

Consequent upon allowing I.A.No.3/2016 filed by the petitioner thereby permitting him to carryout necessary corrections in the application and affidavit in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016, the said applications also deserve to be allowed and consequently, both I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 are also allowed by setting aside the impugned order. In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. The impugned order dated 01.10.2016 passed in MVC No.2331/2004 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the said applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 filed by the petitioner and his mother stand allowed.

¶47

iii. So also the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 passed on I.A.No.3/2016 in MVC No.2331/2004 is also hereby set aside and the said

¶48

¶49

WP No. 101056 of 2017

¶50

application-I.A.No.3/2016 filed by the petitioner stands allowed.

¶51

iv. As stated supra, all the three applicationsI.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2016 filed by the petitioner and his mother in MVC No.2331/2004 are hereby allowed.

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Shri.Sagar Devid v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Sagar Devid v. the Branch Manager

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

Shri Shankargoud S/O Ramangouda Dyawanagoudar Vs the Managing Director

Yallappa S/O Sannasomappa Musali Vs Smt. Shilpa W/O Yallappa Musali

Sri Mahesh Naik S/O Manjunath Naik Vs State of Karnataka

D. Venkanagowda S/O Rudragowda Vs P. Gangavva W/O Shrishailappa

Smt. Lalithamma N G W/O. Late Naendrappa N.G. Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Smt Swapna W/O Ganesh Kadaramandalagi Vs the State of Karnataka