K. N. Mohan vs. K Lakshmaiah Reddy

ITEM NO. $7+38$

COURT NO.4

SECTION IV-A

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13299/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-06-2022 in WP No. 10926/2022(GM-CPC) passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)

K.N. MOHAN & ANR.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

K LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS.

$Respondent(s)$

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.105830/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.105831/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.105832/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )

SLP(Civil) NO. 13415/2022

TTO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO. 7 $$ $(C)$ NO. 13299/2021.........FOR ADMISSION AND I.R. AND $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ $NO$ . 106812/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA NO. 106817/2022- DELETING THE NAME OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

Date: 05-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saket Gogia, Adv. Mr. Akash U.T., Adv. Mr. Harsh Pande, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Ms. V.D. Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.N. Reddy, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sighal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar, Adv. <pre>#r Respondent(s)</pre> Mr. S.N. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Ramprasad, Adv. Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Adv.

Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Parvati Bhat, Adv.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application for deleting the names of proforma respondents is allowed at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner in SLP(Civil) NO.

13415/2022.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.

The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

**We may only note that the counsel for the petitioners have some apprehensions (**albeit without ground, according to us) that the respondent N.5 (defendant No.5) may be sitting there where the witnesses' cross examination is being recorded. The fact remains that it has not happened and learned counsel for the respondent assures that there is no cause for such an apprehension.

On the Court suggestion, the parties are not averse to exploring mediation but without interrupting the trial in any manner.

Such mediation can be held in the Bangalore Mediation Centre once the trial is over.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

[ASHA SUNDRIYAL]	[POONAM VAID]
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS	COURT MASTER (NSH)

2