Smt. Nanjamma vs Hanumaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 9504 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

     WRIT PETITION NO.11023 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

1.    SMT. NANJAMMA,
      W/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

2.    MALLESHA,
      S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

3.    JAYARAMU,
      S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

4.    RAVI,
      S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

      PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4
      ALL ARE R/AT MARGONAHALLI VILLAGE,
      KIKKERI HOBLI,
      K.R.PET TALUK - 571 436.
                                     ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE)
                                 2




AND:

       HANUMAIAH,
       S/O CHOWDAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
       R/AT DANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KIKKERI HOBLI,
       K.R.PET TALUK - 571 436.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY V., ADVOCATE)
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE    ORDER    DATED    04.07.2017    PASSED   IN
R.A.NO.5047/2016 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS     JUDGE,     MANDYA      (SITTING    AT
SRIRANGAPATTANA) PRODUCED AT 'ANNEXURE-H' AND
QUASH THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioners aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.1 dated 04.07.2017, passed in

R.A.No.5047/2016 by the III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapattana),

has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this

petition are as under:

The respondent filed a suit for partition and

separate possession in O.S.No.4/2007. The said suit

came to be partly decreed vide preliminary decree

dated 17.08.2016. The petitioners aggrieved by the

judgment and decree preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.5047/2016. The petitioners filed an application

under Order XLI Rule 5 of C.P.C., to stay the

execution and operation of the preliminary decree

passed in the aforesaid suit. The Appellate Court

rejected the said application vide order dated

04.07.2017. The petitioners aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.1 has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Appellate Court may be directed to dispose of

the appeal as expeditiously as possible and the

present petition may be disposed of.

5. Submission is placed on record.

6. The appeal is of the year 2016, there is no

interim order since from the filing of appeal.

7. Considering the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is

disposed of. The Appellate Court is directed to

dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible

within an outer limit of six months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE

GRD