- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:162 WP No. 52440 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 52440 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.KANTHAMMA W/O P.VENKATARAMANAIAH D/O DODDATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, BYATHA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 089 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O B.KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE PILAPPA A., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SRI.PILLARAJU S/O LATE APPANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAJANUKUNTE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 4. SMT.BHARATHI W/O DR. A.PRABHKAR Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:162 WP No. 52440 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.G-117, 8TH MAIN, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.KUMAR AND SRI M.SATISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.N.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI.G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.848/2001 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING RESTORATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ALLOW THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in O.S.No.848/2001 dated 09.03.2018 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore whereby the court had dismissed an application filed under section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 09.07.2003. The plaintiff No.2 is before this court. 2. The petitioner and the respondent herein have filed a suit for partition. In the suit basing on a memo filed on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 the court had dismissed the suit - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:162 WP No. 52440 of 2019 as not pressed on 09.07.2003. An I.A. is filed in the year 2013 seeking to recall the order dated 09.07.2003 stating that without the knowledge of the plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.1 has filed a memo. The said I.A. was heard and reserved on 07.09.2016. As per the order sheet it is recorded that “Heard the advocate for the plaintiff. No representation for the defendants. For orders on application under Section 151 CPC. Call on 17.09.2016”. Thereafter on 09.03.2018 an order is passed stating that the plaintiff No.2 is not present and in spite of repeated opportunities has failed to proceed with the hearing. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff No.2, submits that when the I.A. itself is heard and reserved for orders, the observation of the court that plaintiff is not present and accordingly the I.A. filed to recall the order dated 09.07.2003 is dismissed is contrary to the facts. It is submitted that they have advanced arguments and the matter is reserved and the trial court had passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2018 which is contrary to the facts and law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:162 WP No. 52440 of 2019 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when the suit is dismissed as not pressed in the year 2003, they filed a petition in year 2013 and thereafter pointing at the docket proceedings, learned counsel submits that on several occasions there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the court had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the limitation for filing the applications for a suit that is dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2003 and I.A. filed in the year 2013 are all on the merits of the matter which the trial court has to consider and pass appropriate orders. As far as this application is concerned, this court has perused docket order dated 07.09.2016 which shows that the court had heard and for orders the application was directed to be listed on 17.09.2016. The order sheet do not disclose that why the orders were not pronounced, whether it is released or it is posted for further hearing. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:162 WP No. 52440 of 2019 that the order dated 09.03.2018 cannot be sustained. Further in the interest of both the parties and to put a quietus and looking at the substantial interest of both the parties, this court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The order passed in O.S.No.848/2001 dated 09.03.2018 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall pass appropriate orders on the I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated: 09.07.2003 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. [ SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37