Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Vishwanth Kamaraddi vs Shoukatali S/O Mahiboobsab ... on 16 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.201513/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O VISHWANATH KAMARADDI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MAHALAXMI TEXTILE OPPOSITE
UDUPI GENERAL STORES, OLD SBI ROAD
SINDAGI, TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHOUKATALI S/O MAHIBOOBSAB MASHYALKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE
R/O KALYAN NAGAR, BEHIND POLICE STATION
SINDAGI, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.07.2021 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO.02/2015
FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.506/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT SINDAGI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 22.07.2021 passed in Civil Misc. No.02/2015 by the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi (for short 'Trial
Court'), whereby the said petition filed by the respondent
herein was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the
material on record.
3. The material on record indicates that in the
first instance the petitioner instituted a suit in
O.S.No.506/2012 for specific performance and other reliefs
in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties. The
said suit having been decreed by the Trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013, the
respondent/defendant filed Civil Misc. No.02/2015 under
Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking
setting aside of the aforesaid judgment and decree inter
alia contending that the same was an exparte judgment
and decree. The said petition filed by the respondent
herein having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial
Court recorded oral and documentary evidence of both
sides and adopting justice oriented approach, allowed the
said petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for both sides submit that the
aforesaid cost imposed by the Trial Court has been paid by
the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/plaintiff.
5. A perusal of the material on record including
the impugned order will clearly indicate that though the
conduct of the respondent/defendant in not showing due
diligence in defending the suit is to be deprecated, the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting one
more opportunity in favour of the respondent/defendant to
contest the suit on merits by imposing exemplary cost of
Rs.50,000/- cannot be said to be perverse or capricious,
nor can the same be said to be suffering from any illegality
or infirmity occasioning failure of justice and warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabinath & Ors.
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.
6. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition
and the same is hereby dismissed. However, having
regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2012, the
Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than for
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
7. Further, both the parties are directed to
co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of
the suit and not unnecessarily protract the proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
