Case Title: SMT. KALAMMA and others versus SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY and others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13525 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
Decided on: 21st May , 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
Facts of the Case
In order to contest an order issued in Misc No. 27/2016 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, the petitioners, which included Smts. Kalamma, Jayamma, and Sarojamma, filed a writ suit under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners attempted to overturn the contested order dated 24.04.24, which disregarded their argument that the matter should be restored because of an ex parte ruling and decree in O.S.No. 464/2013.
Issues:
Whether the petitioners’ 755-day delay in filing their miscellaneous petition and the denial of their request for a stay of the final decree procedures were the primary issues ?
Whether the petitioners argued that if the processes for the final decision did not come to a standstill, their request for because the suit’s restoration would be deemed futile?
Legal Provisions
In order to restore the litigation, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Petition in accordance with Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They also requested a stay of the final decree proceedings and filed an application for a condonation of delay.
Appellant Contentions
The petitioners contended that the Trial Court ought to have given their request for a stay of additional proceedings some thought, particularly as they had an application for a delay condonation awaiting review. They argued that it was unfair for the Trial Court to have rejected their plea request for a stay.
Respondent Contentions
The parties that won the ex parte ruling and decree in O.S. No. 464/2013 were the respondents, and they started the final decree procedure. They rejected the plea of the petitioners because the suit’s restoration would be deemed futile.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The trial court ought to have issued a reasoned order and turned down the request for a stay of additional proceedings. The trial court did not take the miscellaneous petition into consideration due to its 755-day filing delay, according to the records. According to the petitioners’ attorney, the miscellaneous petition would be infructuous if the FDP procedures don’t come to a standstill. The petition is denied and given a 30-day window for review.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
