Dismissed

Sri B.K.Manjunath v. Smt.Puttamma

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/46933/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka heard two connected writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing a Lok-Adalat order. The court allowed the petitions to be dismissed as withdrawn upon presentation of a memo citing a compromise deed executed between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed as withdrawn in view of the execution of a compromise deed amongst the parties.

Sri B.K.Manjunath Vs Smt.Puttamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:33009 WP No. 46933 of 2019 C/W WP No. 46934 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 46933 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 46934 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN WP.NO.46933/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI B.K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. N. KRISHNA REDDY, RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562107,

¶12

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O. LATE PILLA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER SRI. PAPANNA RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN.

¶18

SRI. PAPANNA W/O. LATE PILLA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶19

SRI RAMAIAH W/O. LATE KURUBAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶20

SRI. T. VENKATESH W/O. LATE KURUBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:33009 WP No. 46933 of 2019 C/W WP No. 46934 of 2019

¶23

SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶24

SMT. MANGALA W/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶25

SRI. SATHISHA S/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶26

SRI. VENKATARAJU S/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶27

SRI. VENKATESH .B., S/O. LATE BARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶28

THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 107, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2019 IN O.S.NO.228 OF 2019 ON COMPROMISE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION-151 OF THE CODE OF CIVILPROCEDURE IN LOK-ADALAT PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT ANEKAL VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶32

IN WP NO. 46934/2019

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SRI. N.MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NARAYAN REDDY

¶35

SRI N VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O NARAYAN REDDY

¶36

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33009 WP No. 46933 of 2019 C/W WP No. 46934 of 2019

¶37

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562107 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R.,ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O. LATE PILLA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER SRI. PAPANNA RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN.

¶42

SRI. PAPANNA W/O. LATE PILLA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶43

SRI RAMAIAH W/O. LATE KURUBAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶44

SRI. T. VENKATESH W/O. LATE KURUBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶45

SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶46

SMT. MANGALA W/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶47

SRI. SATHISHA S/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶48

SRI. VENKATARAJU S/O. LATE PAPAIAH @ PAPARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶49

SRI. VENKATESH .B., S/O. LATE BARAMAIAH

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:33009 WP No. 46933 of 2019 C/W WP No. 46934 of 2019

¶52

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶53

THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 107, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2019 IN O.S.NO.228/2019 ON COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN LOK-ADALAT PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE & JMFC AT ANEKAL AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶57

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

Sri.Bhadrinath.R, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo dated 14.08.2024 seeking withdrawal of the petition.

¶61

Memo reads as under:

¶62

''The petitioner above named prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to withdraw the present petition in view compromise deed executed by the parties under compromise deed dated 06.08.2024 in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶63

Memo is taken on record.

¶64

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

¶65

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶66

Sri B.K.Manjunath v. Smt.Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B.K.Manjunath v. Smt.Puttamma

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

Suchitra T Murali Vs Indian Overseas Bank, a Body Corporate

Smt. Sushma M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Wood Bond Ply Products (Industires) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayanna M Vs the Union of India

Smt. P Padma Vs the Authorised Officer, Axis Bank

Smt Sangeetha Agarwal Vs the Authorised Officer