SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 14171

- 1 -

CRP No. 100031 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100031 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.

SHRI. SRINIVAS BERNU KUNDAR,

AGE: 74 YRS, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. 722/2/A, SHANTI NAGAR,

TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001.

2.

SHRI. GOPAL B. KUNDAR,

AGE: 69 YRS, OCC. BUSINESS

R/O. 722/2/A, SHANTI NAGAR,

TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001.

3.

SHRI. SANDEEP V. KUNDAR,

AGE: 32 YRS, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. 722/2/A, SHANTI NAGAR,

TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI AND

SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNAVAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

SHRI. RIAZAHMAD GOUSHIMODDIN MUTAWALLI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. MAHANTESH NAGAR

BELAGAVI-590001.

2.

SHRI. SHOUKATALI MEERASAHEB MUTAWALLI,

AGE: MAJOR OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. H.NO. 173, VISHNU GALLI,

MADHAVPUR-VADAGOAN, BELAGAVI-590001.

- 2 -

CRP No. 100031 of 2022

3.

AHMADSAB MEERASAHEB MUTAWALLI

AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. H.NO. 173, VISHNU GALLI,

MADHAVPUR-VADAGOAN,

BELAGAVI-590001.

4.

5.

6.

MOHAMMAD HANIF S/O. ABDULKARIM MULLA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s,

SMT. MUMTAZ BEGUM

Wd/O MOHAMMAD MULLA,

AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. CTS.NO. 3712 DARBAR GALLI,

BELAGAVI-590001.

SRI. HAROON RASHI

S/O. MOHAMMAD HANIF MULLA,

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O. CTS.NO.3712, DARBAR, GALLI,

BELAGAVI – 590001.

SMT. AISHA W/O. NASIRKHAN PATHAN,

AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. CTS.NO.3712, DARBAR, GALLI,

BELAGAVI – 590001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B.HIREMATH,

SRI. UMESH P.HAKKLAKI AND

SMT. GAYATRI, ADVOCATES)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2021

PASSED BY THE COURT OF C/C III ADITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI ON I.A.NO.13 FILED UNDER

SECTION 152 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.184/2002 WITH COSTS AND

ALLOW THE ABOVE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

CRP No. 100031 of 2022

Present petition is filed by defendants No.1 to 3

aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2021 passed in

O.S.No.184/2002 on the file of the III Additional Senior

Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi on an application filed under

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short,

‘CPC’) (in I.A.No.13) seeking correction of number of the

property.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

That the above suit in O.S.No.184/2002 was

filed

by

the

respondents

herein

seeking

relief

of

possession. In the plaint which was originally filed, the

property was described as CTS.No.832/10/A-3. It appears

consequent upon impleading certain additional properties,

amended plaint was filed. In the amended plaint, due to

inadvertence, the number of the property was mentioned

as CTS.No.823/10/A-3 instead of mentioning the original

number as CTS.No.832/10/A-3. The said error had gone

unnoticed. Parties lead their evidence, suit was decreed,

- 4 -

aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred

regular appeal in R.A.No.76/2017, the said appeal also

came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners herein filed regular second appeal before this

Court in RSA.No.100393/2018. The said appeal is pending

consideration. In the meanwhile, the respondents/plaintiffs

filed execution petition in E.P.No.56/2017 and the decree

was executed by delivering the physical possession of the

property to the respondents herein and the said execution

petition was also closed reporting satisfaction. Thereafter,

it appears that the respondent herein realized the error in

the

description

of

the

property

as

noted

above.

Accordingly, filed an application under Section 152 of the

CPC seeking correction of the said number. On 20.04.2019

the Trial Court had allowed the said application without

notice to the petitioners herein permitting to correct the

errors. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners

herein had come up before this Court by filing a civil

revision petition in CRP.No.100087/2019. This Court

allowed the said CRP.No.100087/2019 by order dated

- 5 -

06.10.2020 remanding the mater to the Trial Court

directing to dispose of the said application after giving

opportunities to the parties. It was made clear in the said

order that the parties to appear before the Trial Court on

02.11.2020 at 11:00 a.m. without expecting any fresh

summons or notice in the matter. After the remand, the

matter was taken up by the Trial Court on 02.11.2020,

both the counsel for the parties were present, the Trial

Court issued court notice to the plaintiffs and defendants

and their advocates returnable by 23.11.2020. Thereafter,

the Trial Court adjourned the matter on three occasions.

The matter was taken up on 02.11.2021, as none

appeared on the said date, the matter was adjourned to

25.11.2021

and

thereafter

04.12.2021.

Again

on

04.12.2021 none appeared, the matter was taken up at

03:20 p.m., on which day the counsel for the petitioner

herein (defendant No.1 in the proceedings therein) sought

for time to submit his argument, as no sufficient ground

was furnished by the petitioner herein, the Trial court

passed the order.

- 6 -

Thus, the Trial Court passed the impugned

order allowing the application, deleting the property

number

as

CTS.No.823/10/A-3

and

inserting

as

CTS.No.832/10/A-3.

Aggrieved

by

the

same,

the

petitioners are before this Court.

Sri.

Laxman

T.Mantagani,

learned

counsel

appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged

in the memorandum of petition submits that despite the

direction given by this Court, the Trial court has not

afforded sufficient opportunity before disposing of the

application.

It

is

contended

that

there

was

no

typographical or clerical error in the memorandum of

plaint and the decree, as such, application under Section

152 of CPC could not have been entertained that too

without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners.

Thus, he submits that there is illegality and irregularity

committed by the Trial Court seeking allo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top