Prakash S/O.Marigouda Dharaneppagoudar Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Prakash S/O.Marigouda Dharaneppagoudar Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the order dated 18.01.2020 of the Hon'ble I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad rejecting the application for amendment of written statement in O.S.No.507/2012.

Ratio / Principle

After recording the statement that the petitioner's GPA holder has expired and defendant No.1 has not come forward, despite repeated letters, to authorise prosecution of the petition, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

Since the underlying suit is of the year 2012, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.ratio¶31
Although the interim order of 09.03.2020 was not extended, the Trial Court had not proceeded to decide the case on merits, which the Court found disturbing.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.507/2012 (a suit of 2012) petitioned the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India through his GPA holder, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.01.2020 of the Hon'ble I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad rejecting his interlocutory application for amendment of written statement. By interim order dated 09.03.2020 the Trial Court had been restrained from pronouncing judgment for three weeks; the interim order was not extended, yet the Trial Court had not proceeded to decide the case on merits. At the preliminary hearing, counsel reported that the GPA holder had expired and that defendant No.1, despite repeated letters, was not coming forward to authorise prosecution of the petition and had failed to appear even before the Trial Court. Recording that statement, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed WRIT PETITION NO. 144640 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) for non-prosecution on 15 April 2025 and simultaneously directed the Trial Court to decide the 2012 suit expeditiously. Notice to Respondent No.1 (Arun s/o Krishnaji Damodar) had been served; the petition in respect of Respondent No.3 (Shrikantha s/o Shankaragouda Patil) stood abated vide order dated 21.01.2025; Sri. Jagadish Patil appeared for Respondent No.2.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6384 WP No. 144640 of 2020

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 144640 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

PRAKASH S/O. MARIGOUDA DHARANEPPAGOUDAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O : NAREGALL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, R/BY. HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHANKAREPPA TUMBARAGUDDI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O : 1^ST CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580004.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.R.HEGDE AND SRI. S.S.HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SRI. ARUN S/O. KRISHNAJI DAMODAR AGE : 69 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : RAJATAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 14:30:40 +0530

SRI. SATISH S/O. KRISHNAJI DAMODAR AGE : 67 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : RAJATAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

SRI. SHRIKANTHA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 59 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RAJATAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED; V/O. DATED 21.01.2025 PETITION IN R/O. R3 STANDS ABATED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY PLEASE BE ISSUED QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD, ON I.A. FOR AMENDMENT OF W.S. DATED 18.01.2020 IN O.S.NO.507/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6384 WP No. 144640 of 2020

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

This petition is by defendant No.1 through his GPA Holder assailing the order of the learned Judge who has rejected the application filed by present defendant seeking amendment of written statement. This order is dated 18.01.2020.

This Court while granting interim order on 09.03.2020 directed the learned Judge not to pronounce the judgment for a period of three weeks. Though the interim order was not extended, it is quite disturbing to note that the Trial Court had not proceeded to decide the case on merits.

Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the GPA Holder has expired and defendant No.1 inspite of repeated letters is not coming forward to authorize the present petitioner to prosecute the captioned petition. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that defendant No.1 has failed to appear even before the Trial Court.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6384 WP No. 144640 of 2020

Recording the statement, the captioned petition is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

The suit is of the year 2012, the Trial Court is hereby

directed to decide the suit expeditiously.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CLK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14