2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35576
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.7957 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAJAPPA
S/O SOORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT
J.C.R EXTENSION
JAGALURU TOWN
JAGALURU
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577523
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
OBAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BYRANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 577523
2.
THIPPAMMA
W/O GADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2
RESIDING AT
KANNAKUPPE VILLAGE
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577523
3.
NAGAMMA
W/O BOSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT
JCR EXTENSION
JAGALUR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577523
4.
RAJAMMA
S/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT
VYASAGONDANAHALLI
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577523
5.
JAYAMMA
W/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT
JCR EXTENSION
JAGALUR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577523
6.
K.P.PALAIAH
S/O K.PALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6
ARE RESIDING AT
MARENAHALLI VILLAGE
JAGALUR TALUK
3
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577501
&..RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION
SETTING
ASIDE
THE
IMPUGNED
DATED
08.12.2021 IN FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS NO.12/2019
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT JAGALURU IN
DAVANGERE DISTRICT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed questioning
the order of the FDP Court, wherein the Court
Commissioner is appointed to submit feasibility of
partition. The said order is under challenge.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.33/2013 is challenged by the
present petitioner herein in RA No.12/2020. He would
submit that since there is a delay in filing the appeal,
4
the Appellate Court is not granting any interim relief
to the petitioner herein and therefore, he seeks some
protection and stay the proceedings pending in
FDP No.12/2019.
3. If the petitioner has already challenged the
preliminary decree granting share to the plaintiff by
way of an appeal under Section 96 of CPC., all
possible recourses are available to the petitioner in an
pending Regular Appeal.
4. It is a trite law that an appeal under Section
96 is a statutory right and the Appellate Court being
the final fact finding authority has to examine the
disputed question of facts and question of law, if any
involved. When the petitioner has efficacious remedy
in the pending appeal, he is not entitled for any relief
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the
premise that the appeal is pending before the
5
Appellate Court and he is unable to secure any interim
orders at the hands of the Appellate Court. That
cannot be a ground to interfere with the orders of the
FDP
Court,
which
has
appointed
the
Court
Commissioner to work out the feasibility of partition.
If preliminary decree is not stayed by the Appellate
Court, it is well within the jurisdiction of the FDP Court
in the FDP proceedings to give effect to the
preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.33/2013.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM