Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 649 Kant
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2023
-1-
WP No. 113942 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 113942/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.GIRIMALLA S/O KEMPANNA KAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC.: AGRICULTURE AND KAMMARIKE,
R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. KASHINATH S/O KEMPANNA KAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC.: AGRICULTURE AND KAMMARIKE,
R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KALLAWWA W/O KEMPANNA KMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
SRI. BALAPPA S/O KEMPANNA KAMMAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O BALAPPA KAMMAR,
KATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed by
R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.01.14
11:30:07 +0530 3. SRI. SATISH S/O BALAPPA KAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
4. SMT. SAVITA W/O MAHANTESH KAMBAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT MARADUNCHI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591308.
5. SMT. VIDYASHREE W/O KEMPANNA KAMBAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YERS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT BASAPUR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
-2-
WP No. 113942 of 2019
6. SMT. VEENASHREE W/O NAGESH KAMBAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YERS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT KALLOLLI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591308.
7. SMT. GIRIJAWWA W/O BALAPPA KAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YERS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT DIRADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591308.
8. SMT. SAVITRI W/O CHINNAPPA KAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YERS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT DIRADUNDI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591308.
SRI. PRAKASH S/O KALAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
9. SMT. PADMASHREE W/O PRAKASH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
10. SMT. PRATIBHA D/O PRAKASH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
11. SRI. PRASHANT S/O PRAKASH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
12. SRI. PRASAD S/O PRAKASH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTRUE
ALL ARE R/AT HEBBAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591308.
13. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THE YAMAKANAMARADI URBAN CO-OP
CREDIT LTD YAMAKANAMARADI,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
14. THE YAMAKANAMARADI URBAN CO-OP
CREDIT LTD YAMAKANAMARADI,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R11,
SRI M. C. BASAREDDY AND SRI V.S. KALASURMATH,
ADVOCATES FOR R13 AND R14,
NOTICE TO R1 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
NOTICE TO R2, 3, 5 TO 9 AND 12 IS SERVED)
-3-
WP No. 113942 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 2277 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC SANKESHWAR, PASSED IN O.S.NO.260 OF 2010 DATED 30/08/2019,
ON I.A.SU/O 18 RULE 17 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-J & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 30.08.2019 passed in O.S. No. 260/2010 whereby the
applications filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC
to recall PW1 for further examination in chief and the application
filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW1 for further
cross-examination, were rejected by the trial Court. During the
pendency of the present writ petition since there was no interim
order the suit was proceeded with by the trial Court, which
disposed of the same vide final judgment and decree dated
27.10.2022. Under these circumstances, nothing further survives
in the petition and the same is accordingly disposed of without
expressing any opinion on the merits/ demerits of the rival
WP No. 113942 of 2019
contentions. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioners to challenge the order impugned in the present writ
petition in an appeal preferred/ to be preferred by the petitioners
against the final judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Subject to the aforesaid observations and liberty in favour of
the petitioners, the petition stands disposed off.
SD JUDGE BVV
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!