Sri Padhmanabhan vs K Murthy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5751 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

             W.P. NO.3070/2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

  1. SRI PADHMANABHAN
     S/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

  2. MANIMEGALAI
     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

      2A. SRI PRADEEP
          AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
          S/O K PADMANABHAN

      2B. SMT. CHITHRA
           AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
           C/O K PADMANABHAN
           W/O BELAGURU

           BOTH ARE R/AT NO.49
           ALERT SQUARE, CHAMPION REEFS POST
           KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 112.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T SUNIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. K MURTHY
SIMCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

      1A. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
           AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                               2




      1B SMT. M ASHA
          AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
          D/O K MURTHY
          W/O SENTHIL KUMAR

      1C. SMT. AMALA
           AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
           D/O K MURTHY
           W/O HEMANTH KUMAR

      1D. SMT. ASHWINI
          AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
          D/O K MURTHY
          W/O HARISH KUMAR

           ALL ARE R/AT NO.206
           C-BLOCK, CHAMPION REEFS
           KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 112.

                                           ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO D))

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
15TH DECEMBER, 2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) AT KGF ON IA.NO.4 OF 2018 IN RA.NO.19 OF 2005 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

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

                              ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the appellants in RA No.19

of 2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Kolar, challenging

the order dated 15.12.2018, rejecting application-IA.IV filed

by the plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts are that, petitioners herein are the

plaintiffs in Original Suit No.305 of 2001. the said suit filed

by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the judgment and

decree dated 01.03.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment

and decree passed in Original Suit No.305 of 2001, the

plaintiffs have preferred RA No.19 of 2005 on the file of the

First Appellate Court. In the said appeal, plaintiff/petitioners

have filed IA.IV under Order 18 Rule 18 of Code of Civil

Procedure directing the court to inspect the suit schedule

property. The said application was dismissed by the trial

Court by impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

appellants before the First Appellate Court have presented

this Writ Petition.

3. I have heard Sri T.Sunil learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri H. Mujtaba, learned

counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent

No.1.

4. Sri. T Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners argued that, the finding recorded by the trial

Court, dismissing IA.IV filed by the plaintiffs, declining to

inspect the suit schedule property is contrary to law.

Accordingly, he sought interference of this court.

5. Per contra, Sri H. Mujtaba, learned counsel

appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No.1

sought to justify the impugned order passed by Court below.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, I have carefully considered the fact that plaintiff/

petitioners herein have filed suit in Original Suit No.305 of

2001, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court by the

judgment and decree dated 01.03.2005 and feeling

aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed RA No.19 of

2005 before the First Appellate Court. In the said appeal, the

petitioners have filed application-IA.IV for inspecting the suit

schedule property by the Court. The First Appellate Court,

after considering material on record, by order dated

15.12.2018, dismissed the application-IA.IV, on the ground

that the relief sought in the application cannot be granted

that too, by the First Appellate Court. Considering the

averments made in the application supported by affidavit, I

am of the view that, the First Appellate Court is justified in

rejecting application-IA.IV filed by the plaintiffs. Considering

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners, since the appeal is pending consideration

before the First Appellate Court from the year 2005, I am of

the view that, the First Appellate Court shall dispose of the

appeal within two months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed

amended copy of the writ petition and same is accepted.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB