- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 30389 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI UMESH S.H., S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT JANIVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.YESHWANTH NETHAJI N.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. J.N.KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1A. SMT.PADMAMMA, W/O LATE SRI J.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR 1B. SMT.NINGAMMA W/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR 1C. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR 1D. SRI.NAVEENA S/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR 1E. SMT.SAKAMMA D/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 MAJOR 1F. SRI. SWAMY S/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR 1G. SRI.RAGHU S/O LATE J.N.KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR ALL ARE R/O JANIVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 2. SRI SHIVANANJEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT RAMESHWARA EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.CHETHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R6 & R7 V/O/D 28.10.2024 FOR NOTICE TO R1 (B-F) HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:18.1.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2014 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA IS AT ANNEXURE- K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by orders passed on I.A. under section 151 CPC in O.S No.40/2014 dated 18.01.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, whereby, the court has closed the further - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 proceedings in view of order of High Court in WP No.28493/2014 dated 01.03.2016 and non-compliance of the observations of High Court in the Writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that initially he has filed O.S.No.465/1997 before the jurisdictional court seeking relief of declaration and the trial court had returned the plaint on 25.09.2006 as the court has no jurisdiction and endorsement was signed by the presiding officer on 21.07.2007. The plaintiff instead of presenting the returned plaint, the plaintiff had filed another suit bearing O.S.No.57/2007 and thereafter he has withdrawn the latest suit i.e.,O.S.No.57/2007 and he wanted to pursue O.S.No. 465/1997. On 06.01.2011, an application was filed to call for the records from central record room & on a memo filed by the plaintiff the suit was dismissed on 31.03.2011 and then an application was filed to separate O.S.No465/1997 from records of O.S.No.57/2007 and objections were filed and an order was passed on 14.03.2011 and the same was allowed on costs and directed the office to separate O.S.No.465/1997 from O.S.No.57/2007 and the plaintiff was permitted to proceed with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 O.S.No.465/1997. The said order was questioned by the defendant before this Court by filing WP.No.28493/2014 and the same was disposed of by order dated 01.03.2016 whereby this Court had set aside the impugned order but the liberty is given to the respondent/plaintiff to make necessary application in the suit O.S.No.465/1997 (which is re-numbered as O.S No.40/2014) and if any such application is filed, it is for the Court to consider the said application on merits and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the impugned order of the trial court nothing survives and closed the proceedings stating that the petitioner has not complied with the observation of High Court in WP No.28493/2014. He submits that without any fault of the plaintiff, he is not able to pursue his case on the merits of it. Petitioner submits that the presiding officer ought to have signed the plaint and ought to have mentioned that it has to be presented before which Court and by what time, nothing has been endorsed and in fact the endorsement is after a long time. He submits that this court has got the ample powers and a timeline maybe fixed and he may be permitted to pursue the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 matter. It is also submitted that there are no lapses on the part of the plaintiff in pursuing the matter. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant submits that even till now the plaint is not re- presented before the Court. When an order is passed by this court in WP No.28493/2014 dated 01.03.2016 till the impugned order is passed on 18.01.2017 the plaintiff had not moved his little finger. He had not taken any steps to file an appropriate application as per the orders passed by this Court. He submits that right from the day the suit is instituted that is in the year 1997 the plaintiff was never vigilant in prosecuting the matter and the court had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. When a suit is filed in the year 1997 and when the plaint was returned, the plaintiff ought to have presented it before the court with an appropriate time. It is the contention that the judicial officer has signed it at a later point of time, because the judicial officer has signed it at a later point of time it will not give a cause of action for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 plaintiff to file a separate suit. For whatsoever reason when the court has permitted him to withdraw the suit and permits him to pursue the suit which is later where the plaint is sent to the jurisdictional court and that order was questioned by the defendant and this court has shown indulgence in the writ petition by order dated 01.03.2016, at least at that point of time the plaintiff should have been vigilant and should have filed formal application and should have pursued the matter. No explanation is forthcoming why the plaintiff had not taken any action at that point of time except stating that this Court has the power to consider these lapses and permit him to proceed with the matter. This Court will not come to the rescue of a litigant who is not vigilant in pursuing the litigation and who has been pursuing this matter right from 1997 in this fashion. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017 even looking at the proceeding sheet it appears that even for service of notice, it took six years and what all the steps that are taken by the plaintiff at least to pursue this writ petition, from the record it appears that even no efforts are made. Under these facts and circumstances this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4566 WP No. 30389 of 2017 Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1