KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (EARLIER KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED) Vs. CAUVERY RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRI VEERASHETTY KUSHNOOR SINCE, DECEASED, REP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 19.6.2012 passed in Misc. No. 789/1995 on the file of VI Addl. City Civil Judge, at Bangalore City, at Annexure -E, and issue a writ of mandamus to the trial Court to amend the order and recovery certificate dated 28.9.2001 made in the above -said Miscellaneous case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, filed an application under Section 31(1)(a)(a) of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 seeking direction to the respondents to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 94,53,000/ -, which was due as on 30.6.1993 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 1.7.1993 till date of payment and it was registered in Misc. 789/1995 on the file of City Civil Court at Bangalore.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is Private Limited Company. During the pendency of the Petition before the trial Court and at the stage of service of notice and in the month of June 1998, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 died on 22.6.1996. Petitioner/Corporation filed an application under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC on 29.8.1998 in the above -said Miscellaneous Case seeking permission to bring LRs., of the deceased respondent No. 2 -Veerashetty Kushnoor. Legal representatives are wife, two sons and daughters. In spite of service of notice on the LRs., they have not entered appearance. Trial Court did not dispose off the application, but has allowed the Miscellaneous case, holding that the petitioner/Corporation is entitled to recover Rs. 180.77 lakhs from all the respondents together with interest at 15% per annum from 1.6.2001, etc. Since the LR. Application was not disposed off, names of LRs., of respondent No. 2 not shown in the cause title as well as the certificate. Therefore, the petitioner/Corporation filed an application under Sections 152 and 153 of CPC praying the trial Court to amend the cause title of the final order dated 28.9.2001 made in the Misc. 789/1995 and also the certificate for recovery of amount, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the same by passing the impugned order at Annexure -E. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2(a) to (e) submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the L. R application was barred by time.

(3.) I have Perused the entire records.