Allowed

J G Mahesh v. Smt C G Vanajakshi

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2024WP/32310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a trial court order on a withdrawal-of-compromise application in an ongoing suit. Respondent conceded the correct course was to decide the Section 5 condonation application alongside the Order XXIII Rule 3A application; the court set aside the impugned order and directed joint consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.06.2017 set aside; Trial Court to consider Section 5 Limitation Act and Order XXIII Rule 3A applications jointly on merits; contentions kept open.

J G Mahesh Vs Smt C G Vanajakshi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6155 WP No. 32310 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 32310 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

J.G. MAHESH S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KASKEBYLE KAMMARAGODU VILLAGE GONIBEEDU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT-577101

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SAGAR SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

SMT C G VANAJAKSHI W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA

¶13

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶14

1(A) SMT. D. BHOOMIKA

¶15

D/O LATE SMT. C.G. VANAJAKSHI

¶16

W/O ADARSH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT KASKEBYLE GONIBEEDU POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R1(A))

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:6155 WP No. 32310 of 2017

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A.2 FILED ORDER 23 RULE 3A OF CPC IN O.S.94/1996 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE AT ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

respondent.

¶26

After addressing the arguments at length by both the parties, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the correct procedure that could have been adopted by the Trial Court is to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay along with the application under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Learned counsel submits that he has no objection to set aside the impugned order directing the Trial Court to consider both the applications together on merits.

¶27

Submission is placed on record.

¶28

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:6155 WP No. 32310 of 2017

¶33

(ii) The order dated 20.06.2017 passed in OS No.94 of

¶34

1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, is set aside.

¶35

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with application under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC on merits.

¶36

All the contentions taken by both the parties are kept open.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

*bgn/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

J G Mahesh v. Smt C G Vanajakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J G Mahesh v. Smt C G Vanajakshi

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

Smt. Manikyamma Vs Sri. B.K. Puttaswamy @ Putta Shetty

Sree Financiers (R) Vs Sri Dyavappa Dead by Lrs

Sri. a C Kurian Vs Dr B Raghuram Shetty

Sri. Sadashivayya Vs Smt. Pavithra P Prabhu

Sri S Lokesh Reddy Vs Smt Neelamma

Smt G Gangamma Vs Sri Taledahalli Mudukappa