Allowed

Mr. H.A Gopinath, v. Mr. Srinidhi Anantharaman

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2023WP/6261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the trial Court to afford the respondent-defendant an opportunity to file objections to the petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC before deciding it and framing issues.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court is directed to provide opportunity to respondent to file objections to I.A. No.2 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and thereafter consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

Mr. H.A Gopinath, Vs Mr. Srinidhi Anantharaman — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:32049 WP No. 6261 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6261 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. H.A GOPINATH, S/O. LATE H.N. ANANTHARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALMELA KRUPA, NO.48, 10^TH A MAIN, 17^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560055.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AMIT A MANDGI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. SRINIDHI ANANTHARAMAN, S/O. LATE H.N. ANANTHARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALMELA KRUPA, NO.48, 10^TH A MAIN, 17^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560055.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K SRINANDAN, ADV. FOR SRI ANISH ACHARYA, ADV.)

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.57) IN O.S.NO.2862/2022 VIDE ANNX-A HEREBY DIRECTING I.A.NO.5 FILE UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32049 WP No. 6261 of 2023

¶19

PROCEDURE 1908 TO BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE LEARNED LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.57) TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF I.A.NO.5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IN A TIME BOUND MANNER.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel Sri.Amit A Mandgi for

¶23

petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Srinandan K for Sri.Anish Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.2862/2022 is before

¶25

this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2023 whereby the trial Court deferred consideration of I.A.No.2 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶27

the suit is one for partition and separate possession. Since the respondent/defendant has admitted and has consented for partition of the suit schedule property, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC requesting the trial Court to pass judgment and

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32049 WP No. 6261 of 2023

¶29

decree based on the admission of facts by defendant. The trial Court under impugned order, keeping I.A.No.2 in abeyance, posted the suit for framing of issues. Learned counsel would pray for consideration of the said I.A. and pass orders. He submits that without passing orders on the said I.A., the trial Court could not have proceeded to post the matter to next stage i.e., framing of issues.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Srinandan for respondent fairly submits that he may be provided an opportunity to file objections to the said I.A. and thereafter, the Court shall consider I.A. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.2 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC praying to pass judgment and decree on the admission of facts by the defendant. On filing of the application, after providing an opportunity to the defendant to file objections, if any, the trial Court

¶32

ought to have passed orders on the said I.A. or any I.A. filed by either of the parties. Without passing any order

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:32049 WP No. 6261 of 2023

¶35

on the I.A., the trial Court could not have posted the matter to next stage of framing of issues. If at all the Trial Court is of the opinion that I.A., filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC requires deferment it could defer I.A., by recording reasons for such deferment. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly prayed for an opportunity to file objection, which he is entitled to. Hence, the following order:

¶36

The trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the respondent/defendant to file objections to I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of

¶37

CPC and thereafter to consider I.A.No.2 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶38

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Mr. H.A Gopinath, v. Mr. Srinidhi Anantharaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. H.A Gopinath, v. Mr. Srinidhi Anantharaman

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

Naseemulla Vs Vidya Bai

Smt. Mahalaxmi M Danaraddi Vs Sri Somashekar Hadli

Smt Priyanka Y Kanni Vs Sri Nikhil Jagadish Agadi

Sri R v Sarvanan Vs Santhosh B N

The Project Manager Vs Smt. Shyamala

Sri S Ravi Kumar Vs Sri Chinnappa v