SMT. HANUMAKKA v. SRI. C.ANJANEYALU
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE.KEMPANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S SRI DODDANNA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NO.22/7, 3RD MAIN ROAD ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040 (BY SRI. P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. C.ANJANEYALU S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/A NO.16, 1ST MAIN ROAD POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560 032
SMT.SARALA W/O LATE N.CHANDRASHEKAR D/O SRI C ANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.40/1, M.K.K. ROAD (K B J) ROAD NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA BENGALURU-560 021
SRI H.M.RAVI GOWDA S/O LATE MARILINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.26, 22ND MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23973 WP No. 19482 of 2021 MARENAHALLI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040
SRI.SANTHOSH PARKA S/O SRI.MANGILAL PARKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.625, 7TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040
SRI. NARAYAN LAL S/O SRI.POONARAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A NO.24/1, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C. GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027. (BY SRI.H.S.SOMANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 V/O/D., 10/11/2021 NOTICE TO R1-R3 STANDS WAIVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2021 MADE ON I.A.NO.18 IN O.S.NO.10076/2006 ON TE FILE OF XLII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.43) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H BESIDES GRANTING ANY OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.10076/2006 dated 04.10.2021 by the XLII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23973 WP No. 19482 of 2021
2. The petitioner before this court is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff had filed suit for declaration and injunction. In that she filed I.A.No.18 seeking to obtain the opinion of handwriting expert with regard to the signatures and thumb impression appearing on Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. The said application came to be allowed on 27.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby the defendant has preferred W.P.No.48919/2018 before this court and this court by order 02.01.2019 has disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the defendant to seek review of the order dated 27.08.2018. The court observed that it is needless to state that if such an application is filed by the petitioner, on the said grounds, the trial court shall decide the application in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Thereafter I.A.No.19 is filed by the defendant seeking to review the order dated 27.08.2018, but the court below without considering the said order and without even setting aside the order dated 27.08.2018 had passed another order in I.A.No.18 by order dated 04.10.2021, whereby the court had dismissed the I.A. filed by the plaintiff. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23973 WP No. 19482 of 2021
3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that now there are two orders on I.A.No.18 and I.A.No.19 is pending before the trial court. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the earlier order is reviewed question of passing another order in I.A.No.18 will not arise, as such it is necessary that the impugned order needs to be set aside.
4. This matter came up on 13.06.2024, on that day this court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in part. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, directed the matter to be listed today. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this court is proceeding to consider the application on the merits of it.
5. On 27-08-2018 order is passed in I.A.No.18, which is assailed before this court and this court has permitted the defendant to file review, thereafter I.A.No.19 is filed by the defendant. Unfortunately the trial court without passing any orders on I.A.No.19 now has passed another order on I.A.No.18. Now there are two orders on I.A.No.18 which is not correct. Considering the same, the impugned order dated - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23973 WP No. 19482 of 2021
Operative part
04.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.18 is set aside and the court below shall pass orders on I.A.No.18 as expeditiously as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly the following order: ORDER i. The passed I.A.No.18 O.S.No.10076/2006 dated 04.10.2021 by the XLII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. ii. The court below shall pass orders on I.A.No.18 as expeditiously as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of this order iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. All pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.