Karnataka High Court
Mr. K. Anand Kumar vs Mrs. Munirathnamma on 6 January, 2021
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.4448 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. K. ANAND KUMAR,
S/O LATE B.KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.100/1
10TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND:
1 . MRS. MUNIRATHNAMMA,
W/O VENKATAPPA,
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY,
DODDA NEDDUNDI VILLAGE,
CARMELRAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
2 . MRS. LINGAMMA,
W/OLATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 19, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
3 . MR. NAGESHA,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 19, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
2
4 . MRS. GEETHA,
D/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 19, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
5 . MRS. NAGATHNAMMA,
W/O MUNIVENATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 76, 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN, CHIKKASWAMY LAYOUT,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU.
6 . MR. MUNIRAJAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
7 . MRS. ARUNA KUMARI,
W/O MUNIRAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
8 . MRS. SHOBHA,
W/O RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
...RESPONDENTS
(R-2, R-3 & R-8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-7 ARE D/W, V/O DTD. 30/10/2019;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W, V/O DTD: 06/01/2021).
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.12.2.2016 IN O.S.NO.5871/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEX-H IN
SO FAR THE REJECTION OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AND THE -1.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being the third defendant in a partition suit in
O.S.No.5871/2009 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the compromise order dated 12.02.2016, a copy
whereof is at Annexure-H whereby the learned XI Additional
City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, has rejected his petition filed
under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 wherein he had
sought for a decree on compromise; however, plaintiffs
application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 for abandonment
of a part of the suit claim has been favoured.
2. After service of notice, contesting respondents
have remained un-represented, notice to others having been
dispensed with; however, that will not halt this court from
deciding the matter.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court
declines to grant indulgence in the matter since the impugned
orders admittedly are not appealable nor do they amount to
any decree; in such circumstance, it is open to the petitioner
to make the impugned orders a ground for attacking the
judgment & decree whereby the subject suit has already been
disposed off; thus, petitioner has got an alternative & equally
remedy as provided under Order XLIII Rule (1) A r/w Section
105 of the amended Code.
It hardly needs to be stated that the period spent in
prosecuting this writ petition shall be discounted while
computing the period of limitation prescribed for preferring
appeal against judgment & decree.
The Registry shall return the impugned orders to the
petitioner after retaining copies thereof in the file.
In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate all contentions for
the remedies that avail him in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
