- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1900 WP No. 148122 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 148122 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. U.M. CHARANTAIAH S/O. LATE U.M. SHIVADEVAIAH AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : TEACHER, GOVT.HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HUVINAHADAGALI, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. K.M.LALITHA W/O. LATE K.M.JAGADEESH AGE : 63 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : HOUSE NO.737, KANAKARAYA BEHIND CHANDRAMOULESWARA TEMPLE, AMARAVATHI, HOSPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT. 3. A.M.UMADEVI W/O.A.M.NAGENDRAIAH AGE : 59 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : CHOUDAPURA IN KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH,ADVOCATE) AND: M.SHANTAMMA W/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O : RAMANAGARA, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TQ., BALLARI DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEKMEHTA., ADVOCATE) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1900 WP No. 148122 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2020, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, ON I.A.NO.1 IN MISC.NO.4/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE.H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order sheet produced at Annexure-C is a certified copy issued and further that he would not rely on the manuscript portion, except to show that the suit in OS No.129/2014 had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The submission is accepted, office of objection at serial No.18 is overruled. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 04.01.2020, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, on I.A.No.1 I Misc. No.4/2019 as per Annexure-H. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1900 WP No. 148122 of 2020 ii. Issue such any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Respondent had filed a suit in OS No.129 of 2014 for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2018 on account of non-appearance of the petitioner. In furtherance of same, Misc.No.4 of 2019 had been filed for restoration of the suit, wherein an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed, which came to be allowed vide impugned order dated 4.01.2020. It is challenging the same, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The submission of Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath., learned counsel for the petitioner is that without adequate cause or reason, the trial Court has condoned the delay of 302 days. The suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, on account of that fact the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1900 WP No. 148122 of 2020 conditional delay and taken the Misc.No.4 of 2019 on record. 5. Having pursued the impugned order it is seen that the suit in OS No.129 of 2014 had initially been filed before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Huvinhadagali. The suit had been transferred from one Court to the other and notice having been issued to the counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff, though was served on the counsel for the plaintiff was not served on the plaintiff for want of correct address. Despite which, the matter was proceeded with and was posted for plaintiff's evidence and when the plaintiff did not appear on successive dates, the plaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. This is not a case where the suit had been filed before the same Court and continued without prosecution before the same Court. The case having been transferred, notice to plaintiff was returned for want of correct address and even the counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1900 WP No. 148122 of 2020 plaintiff was therefore not able to contact the plaintiff. 7. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any wanton disregard on part of the plaintiff requiring dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff having filed an application for condonation of delay, the explanation being accepted by a trial Court being proper and correct, I do not find any infirmity in the order. 8. This being also for the reason that the suit being one for partition and separate possession, there being a recurring cause of action to file another suit for partition and separate possession even if the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act were to be dismissed, that would only entitle the plaintiff to file another suit. In that view of the matter, the above petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22