Karnataka High Court
Sri T Narayanappa vs Smt. Savithramma on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8501 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI T NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANAKA TALUK,
BENGALURU 562157
REP BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRIDHAR
S/O T.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU 562157
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVMAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.C SHANKAR
REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE MUTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562157
2
2. SRI. THIMMAPPA
S/O LATE MUTHAPPA
R/O YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562157
3. SRI. SHANTHAPPA
S/O LATE MUTHAPPA
R/O YARTHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562157
4. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
R/O MUTHAGADAHALLI
JALA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562157
5. SRI. ASHWATHAPA
S/O LATE BELLI DODDANNA
R/O MUTHAGADAHALLI
JALA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562157
6. SRI. SUBBARAYAPA
S/O LATE BELLI DODDANNA
R/O MUTHAGADAHALLI
JALA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562157
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.TEJESH.B.M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 19.02.2022 MADE IN
OS NO.1543/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR
3
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANHALLI ANNEXURE-G TO
THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION
BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR THEREIN AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the order dated
16.02.2022 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli on I.A.Nos.34 and 35
filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
CPC and under Section 151 of CPC in
O.S.No.1543/2006 as per Annexure-G.
[
2. The present petitioner has instituted a suit for
declaration and for consequential relief of injunction.
The petitioner/plaintiff is asserting absolute right and
title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and
defendants have lead in evidence and when the
matter was reserved for judgment, plaintiff has filed
these two application seeking leave of the Court to
reopen and permit the plaintiff to lead further
evidence. The plaintiff has also sought for production
of additional documents. The said applications were
rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
3. The learned Trial Judge, while rejecting the
applications filed in I.A.Nos.34 and 35, has also taken
judicial note of the fact that similar applications were
filed by plaintiff seeking the same relief's which was
rejected by the Court below. The said applications
were filed in I.A.Nos.32 and 33. It is in this
background, the learned Trial Judge was of the view
that petitioner/plaintiff without questioning the orders
on I.A.Nos.32 and 33 cannot again reiterate the same
relief which is sought in I.A.Nos.34 and 35.
4. If these significant details are taken note of,
then I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was
justified in rejecting these applications. I do not find
any error in the order under challenge. If similar
relief's were already rejected by the learned Trial
Judge, the present petitioner cannot maintain and
seek the same relief's in I.A.Nos.34 and 35. Hence, I
pass the following;
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits
and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
