R. RAGHU Vs. G.M. KRISHNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, arraigned as the Respondent No. 2, in Misc. Petition No. 157/2014, pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, has sought for a declaration that the institution of the said petition, under Section 47 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908 as constituting gross abuse of process of law and to set aside an order dated 17.08.2015 passed therein, "posting the matter for orders on the main petition as well as an interlocutory application."

(2.) THE basic facts which are necessary to decide this petition are as follows:

(3.) SRI B.V. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, by taking me through statement of objections filed on 04.09.2015 to this writ petition, contended that the petitioner having taken 13 adjournments to argue the matter and ultimately, after the learned Advocate for the Karnataka State Financial Corporation argued the matter on 29.07.2015 and case stood posted on 06.08.2015 for arguments of the petitioner herein, filed I.A. No. 1. Learned Senior Advocate pointed out, that on 06.08.2015, 13.08.2015 and on 17.08.2015, the Trial Judge heard the arguments, both on I.A. No. 1 and main petition, and the matter was posted for orders on 19.08.2015, which was deferred, as it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein, that his counsel would file citations, and that on 21.08.2015, instead of filing citations, as undertaken, argument at length was addressed on the main petition. Learned Counsel pointed out that even on 25.08.2015, i.e., after filing of this writ petition, argument at length was addressed on behalf of the petitioner herein and that there is willful suppression of material events. Learned Counsel submitted that the Trial Judge having recorded the submission made, that there is no oral evidence to adduce and having posted the case for hearing on the main matter to 15.04.2015, I.A. No. 1 filed, after addressing of main arguments by learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 on 29.07.2015, is a deliberate attempt to procrastinate the proceeding and gain illegally. Learned Counsel submitted that there is abuse of process of Court by the petitioner in filing this petition by suppression of material events and this petition being frivolous and filed with dishonest intention, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.