Writ Petition No. 1531 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) C/W IN WP No. 1531/2017 BETWEEN: SMT. C. MUNIRATHNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKANNA, R/AT NO. 29/1A, NEW BANK COLONY, ANJANAPURA ROAD, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062. (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SMT. BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, W/O LATE LAGUMAIAH, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 3. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 4. SRI. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017
Legal Reasoning
5. SRI K. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O R.K. MURTHY, 6. SRI. K.B. GURUMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 7. SRI. K.B. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 8. SRI. K.B. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 9. SRI. K.B. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 10. SRI. K.B. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SL. NOS. 6 TO 10 ARE SONS OF S/O LATE BUDDA REDDY, ALL ARE R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 061. 11. SRI. S.G. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, R/AT NO. 62, OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062. 12. SMT. RATHNAMMA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O MUNIHANUMAPPA, 13. SMT. GOWRAMMA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O HANUMAPPA REDDY, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 14. SMT. MANJULA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O ERAPPA REDDY, SL. NOS. 12 TO 14 ARE R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 149. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.10.2019, NOTICE TO R1 TO R6, R8 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AT ANNEX-L IN O.S.NO.3777/2007 ALLOWING I.A.NO.18 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION BY QUASHING THE SAID ORDER AND REJECTING THE I.A.NO.18 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 1534/2017 BETWEEN: SMT. SUJATHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE V.R. RANGASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO. 21/1, MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. SMT. BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, W/O LATE LAGUMAIAH, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 3. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 4. SRI. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 5. SRI. S. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O R.K. MURTHY, 6. SRI. K.B. GURUMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 7. SRI. K.B. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 8. SRI. K.B. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 9. SRI. K.B. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 10. SRI. K.B. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SL. NOS. 6 TO 10 ARE SONS OF S/O LATE BUDDA REDDY, ALL ARE R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 061. 11. SRI. S.G. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, R/AT NO. 62, OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 12. SMT. RATHNAMMA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O MUNIHANUMAPPA, 13. SMT. GOWRAMMA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O HANUMAPPA REDDY, 14. SMT. MANJULA, MAJOR IN AGE, D/O ERAPPA REDDY, SL. NOS. 12 TO 14 ARE R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019, NOTICE TO R1 TO R6, R8 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AT ANNEX-L IN O.S.NO.3778/2007 ALLOWING I.A.NO.23 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION BY QUASHING THE SAID ORDER AND REJECTING THE I.A.NO.23. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL COMMON ORDER These writ petitions are filed by two different plaintiffs against the very same defendants. In that, the defendants had filed three applications; one is to reopen; the second application is to recall PW.2 and the third application seeking leave of the Court to file the written statement. All the three applications came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs are before this court. 2. As the applications are common in both the suits and as such, this Court is passing a common order in both
Decision
the Writ Petitions. 3. The petitioners herein have filed a suit for injunction, in that, they have sought for interim injunction which came to be granted by the Court, then the trial proceeded, evidence is completed and the plaintiffs arguments were concluded. Thereafter when the matter is posted for the defendants arguments, at that point of time, the advocate for defendant No.7 has submitted that he has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 no instructions from defendant No.7. Accordingly, the Court Notice was ordered and defendant No.7 had come up with these applications stating that a common written statement is filed on behalf of defendant Nos.6 to 10 and 12 to 14. It is the case of defendant No.7 that no notice was served on him, he has not signed the vakalath nor the written statement. Defendant Nos.7 and 10 though they are brothers, they are not in good terms and his signature is forged, as such, he sought leave of this Court to file written statement, to recall PW.2 and reopen. The Court by its order impugned has allowed those applications. While allowing those applications, the Court has observed that it is the contention of defendant No.7 that he has not received the notice, if an opportunity is given to him to file his written statement, to recall and reopen, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs, but if the applications are not allowed, it would cause lot of prejudice to the defendants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the suit is of the year 2007 and the present application is filed in the year 2016. The application do not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 contain any reasons why defendant No.7 wants to file a written statement, how his interest was not protected by his brother and simply making a bald statement that it is a forged document. The Court without even looking at the time spent on the adjudication had simply granted time. It is submitted that only to drag on the proceedings, these applications are filed and without any reasons, the Court had allowed those applications. He submits that when these writ petitions are filed, the Court had granted only the stay of the impugned order, but the entire suit is not stayed. Though this aspect was not brought to the notice of the Court, the Court had not proceeded with the matter, as if the matter was ceased by the Apex Court. He submits that filing of a written statement, permitting defendant No.7 to file the written statement after the trial is concluded, without any reasonable cost, is impermissible in law. The Court has failed to appreciate all these aspects. 5. Though the notice is served on all the respondents, vakalath is filed only on behalf of defendant No.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 seeking dispensation of notice to respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 14 and accordingly, notice to those respondents is dispensed with and respondent No.7 is represented by the Advocate. 6. Learned counsel Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 submits that a perusal of the written statement and vakalath that is filed on behalf of the 7th defendant, even to a naked eye it shows that there is a difference in the signature and the signature of defendant No.7 is forged. When it is the case of the defendant that no notice is served on him and the 10th defendant who is the brother has forged the signature, the Court has rightly considered these aspects and had allowed the 3 applications filed by the defendants. He submits that as rightly observed by the Court, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if these applications are allowed. He submits that by this time, if the suit is proceeded, it would have concluded. The 7th defendant had filed suit against the 10th defendant i.e., O.S.No.8644/2013 for partition and the same is decreed and against that, the 10th defendant had preferred - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 an appeal and the same is pending before this Court. He submits that there is no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for injunction and defendant Nos.6 to 10 and 12 to 14 have filed a joint written statement and basing on the said written statement and basing on the pleadings, the trial was conducted and the plaintiffs' evidence is also concluded and when the matter is for the defendants evidence, at that point of time, defendant No.7 has come up with these three applications stating that he has not affixed the signatures on the vakalath and the written statement and defendant is not in good relation with defendant No.10 and as defendant No.10 is not pursuing the matter, he has come before the Court and no notice is also served on him from the Court and he is not aware of the pending proceedings. While passing the impugned order that too when an application is filed before the Court in a suit of 2000 in the year 2016, the Court should have conducted minimum exercise and also the defendant ought to have - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 stated the reasons for coming up with such an applications before the Court. In the affidavits that are filed before the Court, except stating that the notice is not served, there is no dispute about the fact that the service of notice in the initial stage. At this stage, Advocate has stated that he has no instructions and even at that stage also, on the same address notices were sent. It is his case that the brother has forged the signature and now he has received the notice. The Court has not made any minimum effort to look at the signature or to even give a finding on whether the stand taken by the defendant can be considered or not. The finding of the Court is that no prejudice is caused to the plaintiffs, that observation of the Court cannot be sustained. Definitely, it would cause prejudice to the plaintiff who had filed the suit in the year 2007 and in the year 2016, a written statement is permitted to be filed. Before this Court, the written statement that is filed by defendant is placed before the Court. This Court has perused the common written statement that is filed earlier and the written statement that is filed now by the defendant No.7. There are no new facts - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 that are stated in the written statement and even in the affidavits also absolutely no whisper about the prejudice that is caused in view of filing of the earlier written statement where certain facts are not stated or intentionally certain facts are suppressed. There is no such contention taken by the defendant. According to them, they are the common owners of the property. According to the plaintiff he is in possession of the property and according to the defendants, they are in the adjoining property. There is no conflicting of interest between the defendants. In those circumstances, the Court ought not to have considered an application that is filed without proper reasons and if this kind of orders are passed then there is no end to the litigation and wherever there are common defendants and after the trial has completed, if these kind of applications are filed and the suits are reopened then it would be very difficult to conclude the proceedings. Looking at the applications that are filed, this Court is of the view that no grounds are made out by the defendant for allowing the applications and the order impugned is without any reasoning and the reasons that are - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2048 WP No. 1531 of 2017 C/W WP No. 1534 of 2017 given by the Court are not sustainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER 1. The order dated 19.09.2016 passed on I.A.Nos.16, 17 & 18 in O.S.No.3777/2007 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.19) and the order dated 19.09.2016 passed on I.A.Nos.21, 22 & 23 in O.S.No.3778/2007 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.19) are set aside and consequently all the IAs. are dismissed. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. 3. All IAs., in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK