In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.65724/2012 (GM-CPC) C/w. WRIT PETITION NO.65725/2012 IN W.P.NO.65724/2012: BETWEEN MADIVALAPPA S/O BASAPPA HEGGERI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KAMANKATTI, SHEELVANTNAGAR ONI DHARWAD ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT.LAXMI W/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 2. SHRI SHIVAPPAYYA S/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT : 2 : R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 3. SHRI SANNASHIVAPPA S/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 4. ULAVAPPA CHANABASAPPA TALAGERI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NARAYANAPUR, KAMALAPUR DHARWAD ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH P.HUDEDAGADDI, SPACE LAW ASSOTS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3. R4 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD.07.07.2012 PASSED ON IA NO.III BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.39/2000 IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J. IN W.P.NO.65725/2012: BETWEEN MADIVALAPPA S/O BASAPPA HEGGERI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KAMANKATTI, SHEELVANTNAGAR ONI DHARWAD ... PETITIONER : 3 : (BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT.LAXMI W/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 2. SHRI SHIVAPPAYYA S/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 3. SHRI SANNASHIVAPPA S/O BRISTESH @ VINAYAK MAHAPURASH AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O MANGALWARPETH, POTNISHGALLI DHARWAD 4. ULAVAPPA CHANABASAPPA TALAGERI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NARAYANAPUR, KAMALAPUR DHARWAD ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH P.HUDEDAGADDI, SPACE LAW ASSOTS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3. R4 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD.07.07.2012 PASSED ON IA NO.III BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL : 4 : JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.43/2000 IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Parties to these two petitions are one and the same, but I.A.No.3 in the two suits namely O.S.Nos.39/2000 and 43/2000 arises for consideration. 2. The contentions urged are common in both these petitions. 3. The petitioner had instituted the suit in O.S.Nos.39/2000 and 43/2000. The said suits had been compromised in the Lok Adalath. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein claiming to be aggrieved by the compromise entered into in the Lok Adalath proceedings, which was to his determent and without his consent had approached this Court in W.P.No.19703/2007. This : 5 : Court, while disposing of the writ petition on 14.12.2007 was of the view that keeping in view the nature of the contentions, it cannot be considered in the writ petition and an appropriate proceedings is to be initiated. 4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 therefore, filed two separate suits in O.S.Nos.1094/2008 and 1093/2008 respectively. In the said suit, the preliminary issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit, in view of the compromise decree passed in O.S.Nos.39/2000 and 43/2000. The suits in O.S.Nos.1094/2008 and 1093/2008 were disposed of on 23.01.2010, stating that the plaintiffs therein would have to file an appropriate application in the very suit, where the compromise was entered into. It is in that circumstance, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed the applications in I.A.No.3 in both the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.39/2000 and 43/2000. The Court below by the : 6 : orders impugned herein was of the opinion that keeping in view the nature of allegations, the evidence would have to be recorded on the said applications and as such has listed the application for evidence. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court. 5. Having noticed the rival contentions and even though the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in respect of the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalth and that too when the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not parties to the said suit, the present application would not be maintainable, what is necessary to be noticed is that the Court below has not yet pronounced its view on I.A.No.3. After taking note of the rival contentions, the application has been posted for evidence. Hence, these petitions at this juncture are premature. All contentions with regard to the : 7 : maintainability or otherwise of I.A.No.3 are necessary to be urged before the Court below after recording the evidence on the same and only thereafter, any grievance would arise to the petitioners. 6. Hence, leaving open all the contentions of the parties, both these petitions are disposed of. SD/- JUDGE Vnp*.

Load more