Allowed

Prakash v. Maitra and Anr.

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/202119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order of the First Appellate Court which allowed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to defend an appeal on behalf of a deceased respondent without hearing the petitioner. The present court quashed the order for lack of speaking and non-speaking reasons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing I.A. No. II is set aside; matter remitted to First Appellate Court for reconsideration after providing sufficient opportunity to both parties.

Prakash Vs Maitra and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.202119 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAKASH S/O SHIVANAND DHARPAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO.403, KANAKADAS BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MAITRA W/O RAMESH KAMATAGI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O RAJAPUT GALLI, NEAR SAYYED, SUNNAD BHATTI, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

¶16

WAJEEDALI S/O SHAIKHAMED INAMADAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HAVELI GALLI, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SRI SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED)

¶19

��

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF THE CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN I.A NO.II BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN R.A.NO.77/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE–E AND REJECT THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.II, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶26

This petition by the appellant in R.A.No.77/2024 on the file of the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, is directed against the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 whereby the application – I.A.No.II filed by respondent No.2 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for permission to defend the appeal on behalf of deceased – respondent No.1 was allowed by the First Appellate Court.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 passed in

¶29

��

¶30

¶31

O.S.No.117/2018 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura in favour of the plaintiff, the petitioner – defendant No.1 in the suit has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.77/2024, which is pending before the First Appellate Court.

¶32

During pendency of the said appeal, the original – plaintiff – Anitha, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the appeal having expired, respondent No.2 herein filed the instant application invoking Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to come on record for the purpose of defending the appeal. The said application was taken up for consideration by the First Appellate Court on 28.06.2024 on which date the First Appellate Court did not provide any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner – appellant to file his objections to the same and has summarily allowed the said application by passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order without assigning any reasons as to why the said application deserves to be allowed. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties to put-forth their respective claim.

¶33

¶34

��

¶35

In the result, I pass the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶38

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure – E dated 28.06.2024 allowing I.A.No.II in R.A.No.77/2024 by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside.

¶39

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.II in accordance with law.

¶40

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file objections to I.A.No.II and contest the said application in accordance with law.

¶41

(v) The First Appellate Court shall consider the rival contentions on I.A.No.II and pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties in accordance with law.

¶42

��

¶43

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Prakash v. Maitra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash v. Maitra and Anr.

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

Dr K v Chidananda Vs Academy of Liberal Education (R)

Dhanraj S/O Vaijinath Chidre Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Khashim Baig and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Haseena Vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.

MD Hashim Patel @ Hasham Patel Vs State by Gogi Police Station

Bandenawaz Vs State by Gogi Police Station