Y.T. Paramesh vs Sanna Gowramma
2022 Latest Caselaw 7387 Kant

                         1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO.10378 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

Y.T.PARAMESH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O THIMMAIAH
R/AT NO.23, KUDLUR VILLAGE
KUSHALNAGAR POST
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571234

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.V.V RAMANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SANNA GOWRAMMA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O RAMU
DAIRY WORKER
KUDLUR VILLAGE
KUSHALNAGAR POST - 571234

                                     .....RESPONDENT

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ANNEXURE-D THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 ON
I.A.NO.18 IN FDP NO.2/2013 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE
                            2



AND JMFC, KUSHALNAGAR AND ALLOW I.A.NO.18 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

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

                        ORDER

After hearing the matter for some time, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks

leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and

also requests this Court to grant liberty to redressal of

his grievance before the appropriate forum.

2. On examination of the materials on record,

this Court would find that the Court has passed the

final decree in FDP No.2/2013 by judgment and

decree dated 05.01.2019. After passing of the final

decree, the present petitioner, who claimed right and

title in Sy. No.55 on the basis of the registered sale

deeds, filed applications in I.A.Nos.18, 20 to 24 under

Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., The FDP Court has rejected

these applications. On query, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that final

decree is drawn by the judgment and decree dated

05.01.2019. If the final decree drawn in the year 2019

affects the right of the petitioner, who is not a party to

the preliminary decree or final decree proceedings, the

petitioner can avail a remedy by way of appeal under

Section 96 of CPC.,

3. The dispute in regard to title and also

complex question of facts cannot be adjudicated under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If really the

final decree does not bind the petitioner, he has an

independent right and it is open for the petitioner to

avail remedy of appeal.

4. This Court is unable to understand how the

FDP Court could have entertained these applications

after passing the final decree, which is evident from

the Annexure-H at page No.57 to the writ petition.

5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is

dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the

petitioner to avail remedy of appeal as provided under

CPC.,

6. In the event the petitioner files an application

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order, the benefit under Section 14 of

the Limitation Act shall be extended to the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM