Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajendra V vs Sri Jayaramaiah on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6746
WP No. 40824 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 40824 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJENDRA V
S/O VENKATACHALAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115, 3RD A CROSS ROAD, 7TH BLOCK,
NAGARABHAVI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560072
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR D NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAYARAMAIAH
S/O PUTTAIAH,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
by PAVITHRA RESIDING AT YALACHAGUPPE,
N
Location: high
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
court of BENGALURU-562130
karnataka
2. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O MUNITHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEBAGER,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560039
3. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIKKANAHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6746
WP No. 40824 of 2018
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562130
4. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
5. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT YELACHAGUPPE,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562130
6. SMT. VANAJAKSHMAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ATHIBELE VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562107
7. SMT. MANJULA
W/O DHANANJAYA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GORIPALYA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560026
8. SMT. KALAVATHI
W/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
9. SRI. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
10. VEDAVATHI
D/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6746
WP No. 40824 of 2018
11. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
12. YASHODA
D/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R-8 TO R-12 ARE ALL PRESENTLY
R/AT NO.250, 67TH CROSS,
BEHIND CORPORATION COMMUNITY HALL,
5TH BLOCK, NEAR BASHYAM CIRCLE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
13. SRI.H.P.RAMAIAH
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
14. SRI. RANGAIAH
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R13 TO 14 ARE
RESIDENTS OF YELACHANAGUPPE VILLAGE,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE-562130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. KUBERAPPA N., ADVOCATE FOR R4, R11 AND R13;
R2, R3, R8, R9, R10, R12, R14 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2021, NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT AND PETITION AGAINST R5 IS ABATED.
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023, PETITION DISMISSED AS
ABATED AGAINST R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2018 IN
MISC.PETN.NO.13/2007 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6746
WP No. 40824 of 2018
(JR. DN) & JMFC, MAGADI AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW MISC.
PETN. NO.13/2007.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the respondents raised objections
regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that
the order under challenge was on the application filed under
Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and as per Order 43 Rule 1(c) of CPC, it
is an appealable order. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he is having merits in the case and
therefore same is to be considered.
3. The application filed by the petitioner which is
produced as per Annexure-C is under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC
seeking to set aside the order dated 25.09.2002 passed in
Misc.No.16/2001, which in turn filed to set aside the order
passed in O.S.No.261/1992 a suit for partition and separate
possession. Therefore, the application is filed under Order 9
NC: 2024:KHC:6746
Rule 9 of CPC and the order passed there on is being
challenged in this writ petition.
3. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that Order 43 Rule 1(c) refers to the appealable
order and Sub Rule (3) refers to the order under Order 9 Rule 9
of CPC rejecting the application seeking to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in the suit. There is no
reasonable grounds made out by the petitioner as to how the
writ petition is maintainable when specific provision of law is
there to prefer an appeal challenging the order. Hence, I am of
the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed as the same is not
maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SKS
