Disposed

T D Puttaswamy v. T C Hulluregowda

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023WP/2655/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 2655 of 2023, the respondents in a civil suit for injunction challenged rejection of an application for appointing a Commissioner. The Bench found the prayer too broad but reserved liberty to file a specific application, subsequently disposing of the petition without interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off; liberty reserved to file fresh application specifying grounds regarding location of boundary.

T D Puttaswamy Vs T C Hulluregowda — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2655 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 2655 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T D PUTTASWAMY, S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶9

T D SWAMY, S/O LATE DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

T D RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶11

VENKATSWAMY, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

RAMASWAMY, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

RADHAKRISHNA, S/O LATEVENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT THOREHOSURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED).

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2655 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

T C HULLUREGOWDA,

¶22

S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT THOREHOSURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATAN IN OS.NO.78/2014 ON IA NO.7 VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners who are the plaintiffs before the trial

¶27

Court have filed the present petition seeking for setting aside of the order dated 07.12.2022 passed on I.A.7 as per Annexure-J, whereby the application filed seeking for appointment of Commissioner has been rejected.

¶28

After having heard the petitioners' counsel for

¶29

sometime, prayer in the application is noticed. The plaintiffs have sought for appointment of Commissioner to measure and prepare a sketch as regards the possession

¶30

¶31

WP No. 2655 of 2023

¶32

of the plaintiffs and defendants in the appropriate survey numbers and to submit the report. Noticing that it is a suit for injunction, prayer sought for appears to be too broad to be entertained.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the necessity for appointment of Commissioner has arisen in light of the specific defence taken at paragraph No.4 of the written statement whereby the defendant has stated that there is a bandh separating plaintiffs and defendants property and there are certain rival claims relating to the said bandh and its location. It is pointed out that this stand of the defendant in the written statement as well as the evidence during the course of trial have necessitated filing of the application. However, it is fairly submitted that the application for appointment of Commissioner could have been much more specific by pointing out to the dispute regarding location of the bandh.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 2655 of 2023

¶36

In light of the same, this Court finds no reason

¶37

to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file fresh application making out grounds as is permissible in law in light of the contentions raised. If such application is filed, the same to be considered in accordance with law.

¶38

Accordingly, petition is disposed off . Issuance

¶39

of notice to respondent is waived as there is no interference with the impugned order.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

T D Puttaswamy v. T C Hulluregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T D Puttaswamy v. T C Hulluregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Archdiocese of Bangalore Vs the Commissioner

Smt. G a Chandrakala Vs Shri. H N Girish Reddy

National Highway Authority of India Vs Sri C Pramod

Syed Ghouse Dead by Lrs Vs v.Shekar

S K Swamiji Vs Smt Gangamma

Smt. Prabhavathi Omprakash Vs Sri. B R Pradeep Kumar