IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC E..A.N# vi-:}mJeePA«LA.cac§wbAHkT T
DATED THIS THE 18TH/JDAY40F."MAR¢.H; 29§33 A" A
BEI5OR£5_A_A T = 'T
WRIT PETLTLQH AN.d.A'139"«5u4Zi.O!35A(C-DFCPC)
MANJUNATH:-SIG-§P'ASAB'iE.Ni5'i:'.v'"
AGE': YEARS DGC: -.AGRv:uLTunE
R,/0 CHIMMAD T
::'TAL{'3AM'KHAN.DfI"$01.; '
Tmpsw 356A LVi<QT; ..
SA.'9sGAéi3A 5;/ ()«§.'I{{F?1S%*iHl\VlHAPPA LENDI
= AGE:"42..YEARE5A__0€3Ci AGRICULTURE
"R/O'-C.HIMMAD._
HTT1.'A'.. JAMKTJAHLIT 533 301
#3151' BAGALKOT
vvT.CHAAl\VI{) "WWA w/0 KALLAPPA LENDI
AH-'3E:' 42 ':'Er"aRS 0-CC: AGRICULFJRE
,,'R,(ocHIMMAo
Tllllll IHII
.. Ts':iL~JH|V!hfiHIVDi 53? 331
' 'MST BAGALKOT
" (ET sax. SACHIN S MAGADUM, ADV.)
V. H AND :
1
BADASHA S/O USAMAN MULLA
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/0 RAMPUR
TAL JAMKHANDI 58? 391
DIST BAGALKOT
NJ
Indl'
TAL JAMKHANDI 537 301 .
DiST BAGALKOT
MALIK s/0 USAMANMLJLLA
AGE: 42 YEAS 0CC:AGRICULTURE»_
R/0 RAMPUR " %
TAL JAMKHANDI 537 301
DIST BAGALKi)T..é * '
RAMAPPA s/o sI5%DAm'; pA:%%sm.«J:
AGE! 52 YEARSVOCC: "
R/O ,CH1M'MAEj! % . % - % %
T.'-'aLiJAH'i§~<":-i.#'~.-%'9I 529.2 391' *
E}IST_4BAGA§KOT .__ "
Aoium S/0:'SiDAD'AP:PA. s~ ALaHAv1
AGE: 50 veaasjacc: AG'RICUi_'i"u'RE
R'/'(J cmmmao
. TAL J"AM'i{HANE1I":."~.3'i~ 301
'A915: BAGfiaLKOT--~ '
PAuRAPPA"S/C') sionAPPA PALBHAVI
AGE: 4'3~'!.EARS OCCI AGRICULTURE
- ~ Sii§P.ISH!5.IL
Rio CHIMMAD
% k~.mkL%3AMKHANo1 587 301
- 'D-IS'!._fisAGALKQT
5,19 SIEJDAPPA PALBHAV1
AGE: 46 YEARS occ: AGRICULTURE
2 -:<,-'0 CHIMMAD
TAL JAMKHANDI 587 301
GIST EAGALKGT
ERSIKPIKRAFPA SIT! SIDDAFPA F'AL'é'aHA'v'I
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/'0 CHIMNEY)
TAL JAMKHANDI 587 301
DIST BAGALKOT
RESPONDENTS
(or SR1. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI FOR R4-oft fg
THIS WRIT PETITIIQN is men. maize. An it
I
226 AND 227 OF TH CONS11TUTIi N C35
Re R
'G nnnczu -rm: ER QATEB n a pan nncggfl
RI
pi\i)..3& JMFC.
\.¢un-ml nu. u.u..su-yu rr\-.1
IN OS.N0.9/04 ON HE F1':';E"--'L)F CIVIL JUDGE '(V
RABKAV -"Ai'iH' i' i' 1' VIBE Atii%'iiE}{URE«E'.~-- . _
This petition:*'ooming"'oij*tor_prei'irn'inai§ hearing B
group, the Court made the follo'wi'n.g':~. _
no an i A .
(Jr.Dn.:V,). i3en_hatti', i'i_i'ecl writ petition questioning
the iegel*itt'{;of_'VA3the«..o'rti.§r. dated 8.9.2006 passed on I.A.2
therein'. _ " t i
H?eard.....ieerned counsel appearing for the parties
' " --vandv4:pei'used the record of the writ petition.
' Facts
which can be gathered from the record ere:
is thetithe petitioners had flied 0.5.9/2004 against the
respondents herein, for judgment and decree of
declaration, permanent injunction and other incidental
reliefs. The suit has been contested by the defendants.
Based n the pleadings, issues were framed by th trial
wuu –u — — -.._
‘K .
r Q.
A..PRf'<*fING
It
had filed I.A.2 under Order_2,3__Ruie"1'(;'§ji"_i*!iiii:: 151
permit them to withdraw th'eésu,'ita,3ivitii. Vte..Aiiistitute*~e 5
fresh suit in respect ofthe eubjiect niatte_r:4.ofVthevhsnit, on
the same causeof actio_nL':-..jfne_vappiiceti:on iivas opposed by
he de.endeete bxffiipieg t§he!r"–eteten1ent of objections. The
the__pe.ytie§;_._b,»v jc_tated"'§.9.2006, has aiiowed the
appiicatiutnooiniparigipennittina the plaintiffs to withdraw the
7__sui_t–eVe'i"itot_:irnei'n.tei.na–b|'e, but denying them the liberty to
fiIe_fresh"euit.'on earne or similar cause of action.
4.h”Lee–rn’ed counsel am-‘learinii for the Detitionersi
[reliance on the decision in the case of D.P.
sH.tanA, v. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND
0 .. :{?THERS, reported in AIR 2001 Kar. 401, contended that, it
application into two parts vi2., withdrewai and ii’oert” to fiie
‘1
fresh suit. Learned counsel contended that either the
application should have been ailonred as It is by granting
\/
/,.
IF!
or the application should have been”‘di«sa~!i’oi~l9gdv~,.
upon which, the piaintiffe Wotiid
l’l’
prosecution of thesuit. Learned couinssei-at»oo.nten~.:ie.d’the’
the trial Court has committed iiie’ga’i’ity in»Ve.\§e.roisiri’g.”thVe’v_
jurisdiction and in passing
5. Per contra, iee_r’ne’d..t:oun:aeiV’A.iio’r.Vthe responded’-3
contended *_-the:;o’iaintiffoV”had_Vfaiiedu to make out any
material anemia seek the relief which was
preyved”tfor;’in’ i;e.2 azddhencettttiie trial Court was justified
in riaaéififi .ti~;ea..%t:*:}piig’n’ed order. Learned counsel
aiternatiiveiyv suiiritifiedi-~’ithat, if this writ pa… ion were to be
.aWji’i:o\¢;.ed,,V%1then'”the.._suit shouid be directed to he proceeded
P
‘ froni..4t;hefatage at which the impugned order was asseci.
r.__v’6.a’AAFter ‘nearing the teeth” co-unset and perusing
.. Vttthe’irecord,the point that arises for my consideration is,
” ‘»1”–‘.Jirhether the trial Court has committed iliegaiity in passing
the impugned order?” \
‘/
/’ .
7. In I.A.2, the petitioners had stated
time of filing the suit, due to..oyersio’ht,V.–‘j,tlheyéeihadul’i
mentioned wrong boundaries in stream:
property, in the plaint pleadings at and-L’
further in para 9 of, the ,o|ai.nt’;.
stated the cause of actiaa «»syersig’ht. It was
aiso pointed out__by have been
sold to VJ.”.’iV2;0O4, which was not
noticed__w_he.ri::”tlte_ meson 13.1.2004 and hence
defendants not necessary parties. In the
objections’ regarding sale of the suit
nrnifiea 1.: ha: ;iar.;….i=.;.+. M.-. 1 1-». 2 An 9: 1 mm: ha: an
H’ ” -“VT’Ié””‘i “vli U” f V” I-uninniufii-ll-l’I’
“W III-fir
. been _cieni–er:i<–., Be not as it may.
trial Court, in my view, has committed
…epaiit\_','-', in s
.gra'nting permission to withdraw the suit but not granting
' the liberty, sought for. A similar question had come up for
consideration in the case of D.P. SHARMA (Supra), wherein
the Division Bench of this Court, has held as follows:
N/.
/ .. .
‘-Ah
“9. Now iei: us advert to the above tw–e’.deoisiene._. .
cited before us by Sri. Datar.
19. In the first deeisioat reperted d
Kant LJ 154 : (AIR 1975-.Ke’_n’t..*10″1»)_
siagie Jaage af _.t_his ‘ Fa
;i’i–
th ”
II
hereunder:
“The Court ought eith_er.toV._»reject’~as a viihoie an
application .’u’nder:” O23, V”R.1(2),V”‘C}P.C. to
witttdret.-«.1 the’*–se!t gperjmisston to file fresh
suit on the samepcajuse’ of._aetzion_’_. or grant it as
w’noie.=- it Cfi’fi’iifif’ sp5.it-_uav_the~.v”a-ppticatian and
grant ‘apart of It a.nd’4reje_ct the remaining.”
se§;o’n’e_v1’::tieeision, the acting Chief
u 2-ti e~:.of i-iirr*rac’i1ai._i?rad,3ash High Court in paras
.–….r- gas ‘are:
L:
“s: t:
V
Q’ LI
1.’?!
5″th’erwt., …_ .. .d as hereunder (at page
.~=
.u:gg~-, _ r
if where a piaintiff makes a
prayer forfwlthcirawai of the suit with liberty to
” fiiefresh suit. in respect of the subject-matter
ef the soit–,~the Court can permit the withdrawai
, rpfthe
. sutig. “–..J’_.t cannot refuse that liberty to the plaintiff
« “~on»jits own.
suit ceupied with the ttberty te file a fresh
If the Court feeis that, in the
.’c’ciIif*.*i.Irnstances, brought before it, permission to
withdraw the suit should not be granted, it can
refuse the prayer by rejecting the application. It
is not open to the Court to split up the prayer
rfiade by the piairutiff by atlowtng the w!tht.|r:-.\.n.-e!
of the suit and refusing the liberty to institute a
fresh suit in respect of the-same subject-matter.
(See Wazir Singh Chheia Biaka Baba Muiangah
Shah v. Hidayat Shah’ Shrida, AIR 1967 Pun]
4″” Devtdes Tulsirern Brijwanl v, Cornrnr._.
3336a Municipal corpn., AIR\1974 Born 39 and
‘/_..
3
i
I-I .
Ifll. g l _
Radha brishna v. State of Rajasthan, ‘V
Raj 131 (DB).
1:. p
I e .
6. The impugned orolergof the.’ =s.:i_
Judge Is unsustainable for lie-vnas.exercis.ed_”V.’
-51191.9-a-H hr ‘L–in
ltl ..
JLlll3Ulct;fifi Whifh hi”: fifinli-. I
It deserves to be and is set aside.” . ‘
ti
12. We respectfully ag_re’e,to,what was held by
this Court as wei’l~..as the High ‘Court of i’-‘llnnachal
Pretiesh in the “eh-‘o.se_ teto oiesieiens. we also
accept the above -1arguvrnent~.._a’df\jeneed by Sri.
Datar. That we”d’e,.f’firstl”y’, fo’.:rfiReie 1 of 0.23
makesitaalbundantiy.’ciearjthat fit the Court is
satisfied t1;_h_a_i_: the s_uit_;rrijt:.st ran by reason of
sorriie f_erVm’ai’-~..d,efei;t_ “ot_i’cha~t there are sufficient
grounds Fer a£Ip’wing’- the plaintiff to institute a
isteit re:-s th’eg”sehjei:t–metter of e suit or e
\_par_t– tl’iéi’geqf;. git’-._ri1ay* grant permission to the
‘piaintiff.to.”with.ci’raw» the suit with liberty to
institute a fresh suit on such terms as it thinks
fit e’nd’vsecond-l_y;~~–that for the writ proceedings
__”the provisions in C.P.C. are made applicable
‘ tinder the’wrl–tA rules.
_ “13. that view of the matter, we are of the
. seaside:-ea view that the impugned order passed
by”th_e*’ learned single Judge is liable to be set
aside’ and that the matter has to be remitted to
~ him for passing appropriate order in the matter.”
9. In my view, the matter herein, is squarely
-wlcovered by the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court.
Following the some it has to be held that the trial court
;—— w
\,.
x
has committed iilegailty, which is apparentehgdt”h’e:ece1._.;ne
impugned order cannot be sustained’.
10. if the suit has_erry’ f’ rrrie’i..d.
rectified, since the trial sLiit”*h_a’cir ico&inlein¢ea,
application for amehdmerittttcoiilld’hate iaeen ‘filed, instead
of I.A.2. By vperusinog that the prayer
sought for,””g:ennot he–:.V~’igrented;…__3T$ there is scope for
moitipiie_i.;;_4″‘of”i’iti«,;Ietii;siri’;’hi-ierice; the trial Court is not
justifiedi*.iia§si’ogj”t.h’e ire?-‘ii’§.?vned order. Since liberty is
notheino grehted;vi.th’e.étpiaintiffs 1’ petitioners should have
the opbortunitvlltotiirosecute the suit flied by them, if
V-‘ir.rfiea;essery i5y””**arnendment of piaint, which shall be
V “softer the defendants are afforded with and
t’ of hearing. In the said view of the matter, the
Inthe result, the writ petition is allowed and the
imneerred order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to
restore G.3.9;’2G9.4 to its fiie and proceed for disposal of
/
It
the observations mac:
e hereinaiggv