What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the delays were caused by the defendants' applications and directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit. The court emphasized adherence to the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005.

The petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking possession of a property and damages. The suit has been pending due to applications filed by the defendants, leading to delays in the trial court proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the inordinate delay in the disposal of a civil suit due to interlocutory applications filed by the defendants. The court considered the need for expeditious disposal of cases, especially involving senior citizens.

Smt M Bharathi vs M/S Saishia Hotel Inc | Karnataka High Court 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.Nos.24650-24651/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT M BHARATHI ADVOCATE, W/O B.S. ROOPKUMAAR, D/O S MUDDURAMAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

SMT. T.UMAMANI W/O S MUDDURAMAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.445/3, 2ND MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYANNA G R, ADV.)

AND:

M/S SAISHIA HOTEL INC (PURVI MULTICUISINE RESTAURANT) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT. B. PRABHA W/O B.H.RENUKAPPA, F.C.A, SY.NO.53/1, 2 AND 3 16TH K.M.OLD MADRAS ROAD, BHATTARAHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560049

B.H.RENUKAPPA-F.C.A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND BUSINESS PERSON, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.116, ASHRAYA, 3RD STREET, NEW INCOME TAX LAYOUT, JYOTHINAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560072

B PRABHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.116, ASHRAYA, 3RD STREET, NEW INCOME TAX LAYOUT, JYOTHINAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560072

SMT. RADHA RAVIPRAKASH W/O K. RAVIPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.20, 5TH B MAIN, 10TH C CROSS, NAGAPURA, BANGALORE-560086 ... RESPONDENTS

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DISPOSE OFF THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.1610/2014 BY FIXING AN APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME, INTERMITTENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY DAMAGES AT REGULAR INTERVALS AS PER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED WITHOUT DELIBERATELY HARASSING THE PETITIONERS.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard Sri. Jayanna G.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Perused the records. Notice to respondents is dispensed with having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Petitioners, who are plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.1610/2014 to direct the defendants to quit, vacate and handover physical possession of suit schedule property and for damages. Records would disclose that issues have been framed and thereafter matter has been adjourned from time to time. On account of defendants having filed applications and plaintiffs having objected to said applications, same came to be heard and disposed of by the trial Court. On account of suit not progressing, petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the same within a timeframe.

As could be seen from the order sheet of trial Court, no fault can be laid at the doors of trial Court and such delay was on account of applications filed by

respondents, which came to be heard and disposed of on merits.

It is contended that second petitioner is a senior citizen and as such, he intends to see the fruits of litigation, which he has initiated. Insofar as, control of proceedings before the trial Court is concerned, it is needless to state that trial Court is bound by the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 and as such, it shall make all endeavours to adhere to the spirit of said Rules.

Subject to observations made hereinabove, writ petitions are disposed of, with a request to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously keeping in mind the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005.

SD/- JUDGE

SMT M BHARATHI vs. M/S SAISHIA HOTEL INC

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments