Allowed

Sri. Muddulingeshwara Swamy v. Sri. Gurumurthappa

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/3505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, allowed a writ petition to quash the impugned order of the Trial Court. The court set aside the order made under Section 151 CPC and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, ensuring the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to file objections.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 in I.A.No.X is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to reconsider the application after the petitioners are given an opportunity to file objections.

Sri. Muddulingeshwara Swamy Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3505 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MUDDULINGESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANA SEVA TRUST (R) LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, MADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICE BEARERS

¶8

SRI.S. MURTHAPPA S/O SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, (FUNCTIONING AS PRESIDENT)

¶9

SRI.L.M. THIMMAPPA S/O MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, (FUNCTIONING AS SECRETARY)

¶10

SRI.M. MUDDAPPA S/O MOODALA GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, (FUNCTIONING AS DHARMADARSHI)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMITHRA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

L.K. SHIVANNA S/O KADA MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, PRIEST,

¶13

ALL ARE R/O LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VIJAY A.M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. GURUMURTHAPPA S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶20

SRI. KANUMAPPA S/O KENGOBANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 TEARS,

¶21

SRI. MUDDA HANUMANTHAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. DEVARAJ S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. THIPPESWAMY S/O MANBOJJARA HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. GOUDAR NINGAPPA S/O KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶28

SRI. P.K.THIPPESWAMY S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. POOJAR PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O SANNA NINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶30

SRI.DARA MADAPPA S/O AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶32

SRI. DARA MADAPPA S/O OBAJJI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. RAJAPPA S/O KANUMAJJARA SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶34

ALL THE ABOVE ARE R/O LAKKI HALLI, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527

¶35

SRI. MUDDULINGAPPA S/O DAARAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O TALAVARAHATTI, MAARIKANIVE POST, HIRIYUR TALUK-577 598

¶36

SRI.K. NINGAPPA S/O KADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/OF LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R16)

¶39

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. X DATED 30/01/2024 IN OS NO. 448/2019 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA NO. X.

¶41

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

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶43

ORDER

¶44

This petition by the plaintiffs No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.448/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, whereby the application-I.A.No.X filed by respondent No.16-plaintiff No.3 under Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶45

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that though various contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of the respective claims, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that sufficient and reasonable opportunity was not provided to them to file objections to I.A.No.X which has been allowed without doing so and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh after providing an opportunity to the petitioners to file objections to I.A.No.X.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.16-plaintiff No.3, on instructions submits that he has no objection for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶48

for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh after providing an opportunity

¶49

to the petitioners to file objections to I.A.No.X.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections to the said application.

¶51

In the result, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

[i] The petition is hereby allowed;

¶54

[ii] The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.X by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, is hereby set aside;

¶55

[iii] Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.X afresh in accordance with law;

¶56

[iv] Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to seek preponement /advancement of the suit to the date during the week

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:11631 WP No. 3505 of 2024

¶59

commencing from first of April, 2024 so as to enable the petitioners to file objections to I.A.No.X;

¶60

[v] Immediately upon the petitioners filing objections to I.A.No.X,

¶61

the Trial Court shall hear both parties and pass appropriate

¶62

orders on I.A.No.X in accordance with law.

¶63

[vi] All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri. Muddulingeshwara Swamy v. Sri. Gurumurthappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muddulingeshwara Swamy v. Sri. Gurumurthappa

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

Ald Automotive Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/S. Sbr Promoters Vs the Assessment Unit

Sri Chokkareddy Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST

M/S Hitachi Nest Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Maathru Constructions Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumagowda Vs Smt Kotramma