Dismissed

Sri S Umashankar v. Sri S Rajanna

Karnataka HC30 Jan 2023WP/23907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court’s order allowing a proposed defendant to adopt the evidence of Defendant No.1. The High Court found no infirmity, noting that while independent evidence is a right, adopting evidence to save time is permissible and left to the defendant’s consideration. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off; trial court to dispose of the matter.

Sri S Umashankar Vs Sri S Rajanna — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 23907 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S UMASHANKAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶10

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203

¶11

SRI S SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203

¶12

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.28 SNEEHA ARCHID, 2^ND CROSS MLA LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 094

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. KUMBAR V.F., ADVOCATE)

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI S RAJANNA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶18

2 - WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶19

KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.558 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010 REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER SRI DAYANAND L R

¶20

SRI BASAVARAJIAH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203

¶21

SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE GURUSHANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.285, RPC LAYOUT, 4th B CROSS, 9th MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 2nd STAGE, BENGLAURU - 560 040

¶22

SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE B S MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203

¶23

SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE D.R CHANNABASSAPPA D/O LATE B S SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KONAGHATTA POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203

¶24

¶25

WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶26

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O SRI. S RAJANNA, NO.558, 6th MAIN, 4th BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. RISHIKESH MADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R5; V/O DATED 23.01.2023, NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 IS WAIVED OFF)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR ON I.A.NO.22 IN O.S.NO.155/2010 DTD 06.08.2022, VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court

¶33

has called in question the correctness of the order passed on I.A.22, whereby the application filed under Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC seeking permission for the applicant - proposed defendant No.6 to be represented through her GPA holder came to be allowed.

¶34

It is noticed that by the impugned order, application - I.A.21 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC

¶35

¶36

WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶37

also came to be allowed whereby the proposed defendant No.6 was permitted to come on record and that application is not in challenge.

¶38

The only submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the proposed defendant is sought to be represented by the Power of Attorney holder who is also stated to be the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. Such facts are not in dispute.

¶39

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in

¶40

order to save time and avoid repetition, the evidence of proposed defendant who is now arrayed as defendant No.6 need not be led afresh and defendant No.6 may adopt the evidence of defendant No.1.

¶41

Learned counsel for defendant No.6 however

¶42

submits that the right of defendant No.6 to file written statement and to prosecute proceedings cannot be abridged as it is an independent right.

¶43

5 - WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶44

6. Having heard the learned counsel for both

¶45

sides, the only submission of the plaintiff is that to save time, the defendant No.6 may adopt the evidence of defendant No.1.

¶46

Having perused the order, I find no infirmity in

¶47

the order warranting to be interfered with in light of the limited jurisdiction for intervention. There is no doubt defendant No.6 has an independent right for filing written statement as well as leading evidence. Suffice it to state that where there is overlap of contentions between defendant No.1 and defendant No.6, it would be open for defendant to adopt the evidence of defendant No.1 in order to reduce time taken. However, this is a matter left to the consideration of defendant No.6.

¶48

8. Accordingly, petition is disposed off . The trial

¶49

Court of dispose off the matter taking note of the seniority of the present matter vis-à-vis other pending matters

¶50

¶51

WP No. 23907 of 2022

¶52

before the Court in light of the administrative circular relating to disposal of old matters.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri S Umashankar v. Sri S Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Umashankar v. Sri S Rajanna

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. N. R. Gangadhara Shastry Vs Smt. N. G. Mamatha

Sri Arunachalam S Vs Smt. Chandrakala

Smt v Pushpa Vs Sri K Anand Kumar

Smt Shanthamma Vs Smt Gadigamma

Sri L Suresh Vs Sri L Ramesh

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Ramamurthy Since Dead