High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a civil court order. The petition was rendered infructuous after the demise of the first respondent, leading to abatement against him and dismissal of the writ.
Writ petition disposed of as the petition stands abated against the first respondent and is rendered infructuous due to his demise.
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.
WP No. 236 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI D LOGANATHAN S/O LATE SRI.N.DURAIRAJ AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.49, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560020 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI L. KUMARAGURU S/O SRI.D. LOGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.49, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560020
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
WP No. 236 of 2018
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
WP No. 236 of 2018
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 29 & 30, 11TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N.DAYALU - R7- PARTY IN PERSON; V/O. DATED 28.07.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3, R4 (A & B) AND R5 TO R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O. DATED 29.03.2023 PETITION AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.2.2017 PASSED BY THE 18TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU ON IA NO.36 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO.8391/2001 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 236 of 2018
ORDER
This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8391/2001 on the file of the XVIII Additional
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ' the civil Court '). The petitioner has called in question the civil Court's order dated 13.12.2017 rejecting his application (I.A.No.36) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for orders of terminating the power of attorney executed by the first respondent (the first defendant) in favour of the seventh respondent (the seventh defendant).
On 18.08.2022, this Court has recorded that the seventh respondent (party-in-person) has filed a memo reporting the demise of the first respondent on 28.12.2020, and because necessary steps have not been taken, this Court on 29.03.2023 has recorded that the petition as against the first respondent stands abated. The seventh respondent submits that with the demise of the first respondent, the power of attorney executed in his favour has also lapsed and if
WP No. 236 of 2018
the power of attorney has lapsed, the application remains infructuous. Indeed it would be so, especially with the seventh respondent, the power of attorney himself stating so, and in that event the petition is also rendered infructuous.
Hence, the petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
RB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition by the plaintiff-in-civil-court stands disposed of following the demise of the primary party who was the grantee of the power of attorney and subsequent abatement of the peti
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri D Loganathan
Sri.D.Nagabushan
Smt.N.Manjula
Sri.N.Shivakumar
Smt.Meenambal
Smt.Mahalakshmi
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
