Sri Sadananda vs Sri K Gopala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4827 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

    WRIT PETITION No.5851 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.SADANANDA
S/O LATE JANARDHANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2. SRI.NARASIMHA
S/O LATE JANARDHANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SADANANDA THE PETITIONER NO.1

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE & POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE -560 060.                 ..PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.K.GOPALA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT: KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE & POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE -560 060.
                                2
                                                W.P.No.5851/2017


2. SRI.THOPAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH @ PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT: KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE & POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE -560 060.

3. SRI.C.N.KRISHNAPPA
S/O NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.65/2, 1ST CROSS,
KAVERIPURA,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BANGALORE -560 079.                   ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V.VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
R-2 AND R-3- SERVED)


                              ****
      This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated
28.01.2017 passed in M.A.No.61/2011 on the file of the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore, vide Annexure-A.

      This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing,
this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

The present respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.74/2010 on the file of the learned II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, at Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"),

W.P.No.5851/2017

which suit was for the relief of partition and other incidental

relief. The present petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in

the said suit. Respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 3 and 4

in the said suit.

2. Plaintiff's I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1

and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected by the

trial court by the order dated 31.05.2011. Aggrieved by

the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in

M.A.No.61/2011 under Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil

Procedure in the court of the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as "the District Court") and the said

appeal by the Judgment of the District Court dated

28.01.2017 came to be allowed and respondents 1 and 2

were restrained from alienating the suit schedule property

till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.74/2010 pending

before the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the said

respondents 1 and 2 in the District Court have preferred the

present petition.

W.P.No.5851/2017

3. Respondent No.1 is appearing through his counsel

and respondents 2 and 3 though have been served with the

notice have remained absent and when the matter is taken

up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

he would not press the present writ petition provided the

respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff in the trial court would

co-operate with the trial court in early disposal of original

suit which suit is now at the stage of recording evidence in

the matter. He apprehends that the plaintiff may file

application after application to stall the proceedings. Thus,

if the plaintiff undertakes that he co-operates for the early

disposal of the original suit, he would not press the present

writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that

the plaintiff has not filed any unnecessary application except

an application seeking impleading of some subsequent pre-

suit agreement holder which was very much necessary and

genuine. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1

W.P.No.5851/2017

submits he would co-operate by all means with the trial

court for speedy disposal of the original suit.

In the light of the above, since both the parties have

agreed to assist with the trial court for the speedy disposal

of O.S.No.74/2010 pending between them in the trial court

as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, the present

petition stands disposed of as not pressed. However, since

the original suit is of the year 2010, as such, 12 years old

suit, the early disposal of the original suit in accordance

with law, however not later than six months from today

would be highly appreciated.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN