S R KRISHNAPPA v. SRI RAMAIAH

S R SRINIVAS S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.17, RAMAIAH LAYOUT OPP:CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE S G PALYA, D R C POST BANGALORE – 560 029. ...PETITIONERS ( BY M/S LEX NEXUS, ADVOCATES) AND : 1 SRI RAMAIAH S/O MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A NO.16, RAMAIAH LAYOUT 2 MARUTHI NILAYA SUDAGUNTE PALYA D R C POST BANGALORE – 560 029. 2 SMT PILLAMMA W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.16, RAMAIAH LAYOUT MARUTHI NILAYA SUDDAGUNTE PALYA D R C POST BANGALORE – 560 029. 3 4 5 SRI S.R.VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O RAMAIAH R/A NO.16, RAMAIAH LAYOUT MARUTHI NILAYA SUDDAGUNTE PALYA D R C POST BANGALORE – 560 029. SRI S.R.SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O RAMAIAH R/A NO.16, RAMAIAH LAYOUT MARUTHI NILAYA SUDDAGUNTE PALYA D R C POST,BANGALORE – 560 029. SMT.S.R.PARWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O S.R.VENKATESH RESIDING AT NO.26, 1ST CROSS, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C.LAYOUT, 3 BANGALORE – 560 029. 6 SMT.S.R.SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SIDDAGANGAIAH RESIDING AT NO.12 “DEVI KRUPA”, 1ST CROSS, RAMAIAHA LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. ...RESPONDENTS ( BY SRI. Y R SADASHIVA REDDY, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2011 IN O.S.NO.15185/2004 PASSED ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC ALSO DATED 11.11.2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-C TO THE WP. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition. On an application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint it was allowed. Time was granted to file an additional written statement which was filed. On the next date the adjournment was sought for by the 4 plaintiff which was rejected and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the present Petition.

On allowing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 the amended plaint was filed on 30-9-2011. On 1-10-2011 time was granted to file the additional written statement. It was filed on 10-11-2011. On the next date the plaintiff’s sought for time in order to lead his evidence. The same was rejected and the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution. The trial Court should have considered the fact that on the previous date itself the additional written statement has been filed. Reasonable time should have been granted to the plaintiffs to go through the same and to prepare themselves for evidence. Listing the case on the very next date and dismissing the suit for non-prosecution would be very harsh on the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, I’am of the considered view that an 5 appropriate opportunity be given to the plaintiffs to make preparations to prosecute their suit. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 11-11-2011 passed in O.S.No.15185/2004 by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is set aside. The suit is restored to file. The plaintiffS to appear before the trial Court on 25-6-2012 on which date the suit shall proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE RSK