High Court Karnataka High Court

M.Rajasekhar S/O Sri. Muniswamy … vs B.V.Pramod S/O Late B.S. … on 20 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M.Rajasekhar S/O Sri. Muniswamy … vs B.V.Pramod S/O Late B.S. … on 20 November, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
1}? THE HIGH Ci"_':L%RT €313' KARNATAIIQA AT BANGALORE
Dated '(ha :Z€;'fih dais? sf N{)V€fI_T1§3f3I' 2909
: B E F {J R E :
THE HC=N'BLB2- MRJLFSTXCE : \f..JAGANNATHf;§§
WEI?' §"~'E'FI'i'If>I\3 No; 32846 I 2009 fGM--CP"C'§""--«.T"'*,

ww %8sis:/m(a%&}s%%«»~i:'E9); Me:
BETWEEN : "M  Am
  a;;:~'¥51'
S331 Mjéiagasekhar,     M °'-=..   V.,§»g_ 
3/0 $371 Muniswmny Gcwda, " ' " ' "   _j
Aged about 4!} years,  A
R/at.Khati1aNa.78?, 'F??9, : _'
A.mn1anik€re Achukattet,  _
Gamdhinzigma, K0131" Kasaba: " _ . A_ ,
..  .  "vv-..,J.§*€ti:itiener

( By Sri Mfihiufa  }

A N Li;

 .é=rr13,xI»Praniad;  %
_ Sjn E;.53T.f':' B.;'F';,\:'7:2nk"$}far:1m,
_§ 'éged afigggt 59 years;

at

3  B},A";x*T.Ra1:11a11 Iiumar,
_  _ Sgoi .I;&¢e'-"B.S.Veni{atarazn,
 ._  3~'§'g,=F=V":*_-€{__€:L1;ic:":_1'i,: 49 yfiars'

~ 351:}: Rf at Lagumenahaili Village,
Eitiamhalii Habli, Bangaiom Smith Taluk.

 ii H Sri Iiyaxma,

' S/9.811 Ssemasandra Slfidappa,
Agaé 3.33021: 46 years'

4»; 83% Eianiunam,

S/*9 ijganna, Aged about :29 years.



2

(5.11

Sri Prasaxzrxa,
S/0 Iyanna, Aged about 20 years.

Respondent: No.3 to 5 am
R/at Bcomenahaili/Lagumcnahalli,
Bidarahafli Hobli, Bangalore. South Talulg

4 ; .Rt;';$§;1§ji1?i<:i:%:s

{ By Sri K.GnSadas.'{1i¥.raiah & 811% V.  * "

Acivorntas for C/¥i'--V.3Mf.o I?--Er3."  = -.  ' 

Writ Petitiorlsfiled praying tt3_;;s;.--$ue Wfit «:3§.c<3ri;c;ra:'3_V

and quash the i:11:3L1.<2,I1r::;'§._ :;s1j<;l§:rA'<:IV1 13313.45  5:0 

passed in {)S.N0.5*-'19/1999 dfat;¢d.VV_19.9;2.(}C§':, «in the file
0f the Civil Juclgev '.  A1méx£1rc~J and

mnsequentlgr ta dismiss' 'tli e7::€;1:__.r::;ieif.~» fiiéd under

Qrdei{_\fI1I-- xéziie  magtea 28.2.2003, at Axmaxure-J.
 .j:x:i:i:ix;;,;tf't_:"'ma<:i¢ the foflowing :

 can for pzvslimixxarvy hearing

ORDER

O 4: 93,2
C3;’13_i§3«*’1wmt pefiii0n5® by the piajntifi’ in C.>.S.Ne;

549/ 3.999 a;;c1%°”direc:ea against the grater passad by

‘ court an §9.9.20<}9 in respect Qf issuesfi ts fig

tbs: said erdar, the trig} mart answerszfi the aaid

{brass issucs in afiirmative and timreby tha plaintifi'

3
wafi forced {<3 apprcsarsh this cnurt in this writ petition

smirking for setting asidfi. the ilznpugnad Gfdfif.
2; Tha patitionar, being the plaintiff, filed the suit

CL$.NCL 549/ 1999 against the msponcients for

miuncfion and t9 restrain the def&nd;éi1§:35_~ _

intexfexing with 'Chi? plaintiffs lgwfui =

eniagzment 0:" the suit: schedule prsgiuertics.

agzticultural lands measzzfixgg éicrc lgLa11j;a#s

S.N{}. 11/1 and 4 acrfrs and 'ii:-:$'s:.:\Iov.v 12, along

with _h»z31;-Se and cattie shed of 5 to
6 anké3::aufs1$,A stejiéiei-Lj.7:7l§:féE:;%§:éi' 'évell and 3 pump heusie with

eu€;ai3?@ tus; 'jag i.-*-écés as week! ass paddy field situated

Bidarahafli E-Iobli, Bangalem

The Said suit was aanitzsted by '€:;h-.2

re$§0n,éen'€s~defendants and they also made cnuntcr

the said szlii. The trial court, based on the

_§f.éa§;i§1g$ of 'mi: parfiess framed the foilcrwirzg mm

V' 'issum:

4%
{ ‘1:

.3

8} Whether in a suit for permaflent iniuxztstioia the
saunter claim claimed defendants 3 to 5 for
d(i’–{3}.£1I’flti0§1 and ether cgnsequential is

maintainablzit?

9′; Whemer piaintifis are entitled fer–. T x

nemnanent injunctien as ::}1§’ayedziii1 5 .’

10) What ordar gr decree?

3; The respondents-defei§t’éi1£$–3 frfi T ffieé an V

anpficafion under CECE.

re-m1¢s::i:gT% dééléfe the sale transaction
§3et\&*esé;1V ‘G133: «anal Rajashekar (alaimziii) is

rm}? .,5§”1d”:r4§i{i~V 3}:<3t ezfiorcaablg 03:1 the third

. V. – ¢é§'=:?::j<1«t:§T%31:1itte€1 them :9 file 2; strmmtgr claim’

9?, Thereafter, tha petitianar meved this cgsmt in

‘W,P»E*4;’e:x 26111f2€?f}fEe Chafiemgng the ercicr ef the trial

scrum, zxghich had alimxzed the amaiicatioxx far counter

M

claim. This court, while ailowing the writ pefiiipn,

directed £116 trial court to take up

:;1e::1tiened above as pre3i1ni11arjs; is-sues 31$-..,.¢s3nVsi§;ier this .. 2

Salliii Pursuant to the said ‘t1’iaI

C(}I1’Sid€I’f32d i.ss.ues–6 t0 8 3:i1r::;1u’o1ie3.;i”‘abo1r¢:’ pefisse-*i_:”L.

the irnpugned order and .ifss1’1’¢é-:;..VV’§§2§re vvvanswemd
in the afmmafive court has got
_im’§s<:ii<:t:i<:.=:r1 to the court fee
paid on the and in a suit for
" claim by defendant':-3~
3 1:9 fife}? 'maiIitainabl$. Aggrieved by the
said the pxaantm" has Come up

'writ péiifjgna A.

* fifiard time: laarned caunsal for ilhfi paxties.

Tfzé Tvcounsel for tha petiticncr argued that the

AAt;#ial.(:m’.31*i: ‘esza$ ix: envy in censidering i3su:3s–6 ta 8

A’ 3 96:13.38}. of the: §3I’QCif:’€diI}§S of the trial ccurt

2 .. –i;€f¥€81S that 1331133-u::3 is 8 were éeiated by an Qrderr dated

3 LS:,2f;¥C)6 and? tilsrefare, the mtial court cauid mat have

(311613 again CQfiSid€ fi gait: issuefi-6 its ;% and passed

“E
1′

the inmugmtd erder, Sacondiy’, referring to the above
filing of the suit, which was on 25,11.1999, anti

appearance cf the defendants on 15,1;2.1999

Qf the written statement by the said def¢I1da;§. t_$7

16.102000, and than makmg 3 ‘<§'1;–.

28.22003, this suhmissiofl mafia

date: er fizmg of the. Wfiti€1TSt8;{di11§3f1? :;1¢jm;1¢:eyj%% %

claim that was made, there s%;?;’L§ a,lpnfi’ 3 days
and, therefore, the txiaziéi’ flQf£: have permitted

the defendants; to raise. :t}1e– _.c%.(»)_1′:;1’ite;:r””1¢i%i’§’§.a.i111 at such a

belatérgi sf«stag¢”‘Vr;1t3f£:’:1″1ce of the defenfiants got
aver withL§heVVf1iL*;1§§§f ivritten statement;

6f ~ is t§1€x1;vv__f.f,§’rr:tez1dr:d that the triai court alga:

‘ ;gfi:033.f:1:3§f’:;’i:ari.t<§._é:i2A__¢:rrQI' on the aspect cf Limitatilsn in resfieci

. iii" 'vclaim made by film dafcndants and SO aiscr

céizffv Eeeisw czammiited tha mistake in hgyiding that

V' :f_* court fee: gait}. is $uffiCi€fi'IL and; as such, ti}:

Vimgugngd arder calms: be susiiainfid fer thz: 3.b<:::'%:e

rEaS{§fi$3 In suyport of the above smbmigsizixns, this

iéjarrmd munseti griacezd reiianae 011 the ciecisigns

\\
4'

8
I’f:’.}3§1′”£€d in 1914(2) E{.as::L.J. Short Nate N0.:3Q5, page SCI,

ALB 29310 Caleutta 1?, AIR. 200% B{m’iba3I 183,'”A».TI.R.

1989 £Z}ris_f-3a 5:3 and LL-.R. 1999: Kamataka

si:r¢:n§;;tl1 9:” the afaresaid rulings, the _

seught for the petitien being

ordsr being set aside.

7. On the other hand, . i:orVVR–3 ti:

R-5 submitted that 1:23′;_5″‘~:?.rrcii” ha$–.’§;@;é1~:.committ$d by the
trial r:::_2urt; in passing §.fi1;9jj_1;:1″1ri:i c:v;:¥?,ii;.:1§’ an issues–6 to
8 “f:1*ii3″:.1§3”;£f1 “$a}déVVi’ssué_$”‘hé._Ve been Shown to have:
been €’3–€1€t€§ by the m€:i’Cioner’-L: counsai,

yatt,_ 3:33! Vf11éa:;:V”}Ci.”c-V31′ passed by this ccszzrt, the trial

‘ V’ . C313}: i..A’ha<:iz to ééiisidfir issuesé to 8 as ,T_3I'ff';'}iI}C3.iI."3,I:"51.1i""_'§—*

'Vit:s$i:§3;"'a:1:j'%':r;a%;;§3rd a. finding an them and, therefore, 110

Cf'??? cermmitted 1:23; tbs iriai couri: in passing

xths:-: z:§r-:i_ér 0:1 the aferesaifi issues;

N fig far as isha limitation is conccznefi, the

gubmififiian mafia by this: isgaxneé caunsfil is that, in i:h2:=+

courztar ciaim itself, it is stated that the cause Qf acfim":

9

arosae in the year 2003 and hence the Ln:-tliaf Seught far by
the defendants is weli within tima; As far as the court

Elite. ifs eoncemed, the: 311bmissic311 made is that

court has rightly held that the court fee paidiw.’

pmper and EVQII otherwise, this respondr:1::.t$ ‘:ViIl.A_Tpa3:’ {F123,

deficit comt fee, if so directed u.3:1t&é;’ f:: o11’e:rr:§;’::ési, ” ,

the submisséen made is thaf’ _$tagé- T£:}31;ig}1etion of
the eviiience of me ;vi72(1Z.1¥l”~–!_C§’i’=.».’,T~f'”.’.¥’~1_)?.1’C, can the other

hand, {ha crss_s~exa::n;;;:;§a;tionA ¥;>f fhe’~~.’;>1z:inti$’f and the

€Vif.’1fii’1§3€–.=$~f’ is yet is begin’ Themfere,
raéiyizag 5:2″; 3 {:€.>”x..1r£ reparteé in 2001(2)

i{m”.iL-Le}; €12 K}; “i*:h;:V_ :a:a_;’:–;::311issim}. made is £113: the saunter

» §f:lEef;;m., __y:;:5:r:::§:te3d to be raised even after fiiing caf

‘% §j,:3.%’:1%fitf§¢::n”T:;.Siat@m§nt bait, much befcrfi the 03.36 is

rséérvéd fag” juda;§m.€11{g As such, 31:: £31.11′: can be fauna

» nir:L’i”.§1&: imgmgged grder.

H Eizwizag thus hfiard bath sides, I de not 3&5 any

merit 1:’: {his writ petiiion far thas fgliazvizig reasans, That

frat flfifi 313 that thifs cmumrt, awhile fiifizinasizzg 0f WwP,’§’é’G,

i
r’

*2

EC-

2é111;’2i)€.’.25 on ?.9;2{3Q@, had diréctari ‘(ha trial cum: :0
censider issusjs-43 to 8 as prfifiminary issues and aftar

h€:ar;”1g bath sides an that, in 1:93:53 an order; fJn::1 e’:* th€

sgajd {2iFCi1II1S’CaI1C€S, the trial cezsurt had no <:ga';;':+:;fV.<;'3_';3i;?Ig;:11

but :0 pass: an ordasr 0:1 issuacsé to 8 '1':é:';s4_1:::=§'r_=.%;1';..VV

nraciselgr dent: 1:13' the trial 15:35 ': «"§a;é¥3Z:r1g:

impug11ed erder. Mr:rr21_3: ¥:n.=:.t:a_.3.1s:%.;f{r::”‘ (;’*.V_at;.;._~:-Vii?3-?£’;$;2£}06, the fact that

the order of this mart fawas = pa§ss¢€1l».”:i1uch later on

?;9,Q§}_06–_, £10 scope far that trial ceuri:
{Exam to {:~:*;.:1:=3~i{.”ZcéI;<'_f33;é 41331153 and ;3a$:-5 an Qrcien As

tkm g9 023_r.'§§.:1 missed in this regard d=::::s net merit

» 3; :_;.{t:a::5id.¢1**a:ion;

” the Iimitatien point is concerned, :11:

}sé;§*:”;e€§.a :§{;m1$&1 far the petitianer, by relying 91:3. tha

” V. rttferreé ta abova cited by him submitted that the

;;0:i,iA:1tar €333,111: cgrsultji mat have 236611 maria at 3. beiaieri

V “giage, that fee Lang after $116 filing af th-3 written

statameni and aftm” 3 gap af 12′.i’:% da’Ef;-Viz-E9 As far as $3313

E1

contanij-tm is cancemasd, {his team, in i;E1¢ ,_rf§;:1::§;1g

reparzsrtezj in 22{‘iO:(2_) Kar.L¢J. 610, aftar _

several decissiens of the Apex €Z30ur’:, ‘::*i,i1(~,{£j. 4.:}:1£:§t,–« ..

insvafar as the time limit f0rV=.Afi1i11g.?:QL1::t¢:”- ;-32:4

ceracemad, it can be f11ed_

statement: and it Car; bf: flia is not
Cfiiflpifitely closcird by :ém[§iA.§af9re the matter is
reserved £0?’ .i’iJ4iggn€ni;;’ the gas: is
will at film the p1aintifi”s
such, the question 91″

the cempleted dees not arise

gnd, also dtms not carry enough

fC§_1{§§:% 1;;{ehi_:1é’it;*–V…. %%%%%

‘ as the ceurt fee is rsonccrxned, the learneci

fria}; ju:i§;¢, the course 0f his orclar an i$SL1€~?, has

Agtisitd that aemrding it} the provisigns ef Secztien

V’ ~ sf’ Cieurt Fees & Suits Vaiuatien Act, thfi mar: fee

.?:’;a$ ‘:9 be paid for 1:115: razlief ciaiméd in :c€;$*m€-At Qf an

H agiculturai iazzd 011 the market valua csf tbs ymperty 23:’

R3. 1,9091», whichfiver 11:3 higher 311$ has aim netrzd that

wf

Q53′

«A

…..

593′ {‘2$'(i~’;’I’ ‘;:ra:.~”z.$r;:d by that ma} court an issuesdfi ti} 8. The

ax .a.’§\””‘\\

-5

5

11>.

awn afzczr 1:31:-:: aznandment of the mitten statement by

way ef cmmter ciaim, the defendants have fmnished
fI’€’:Sh valuation slip and alga have paid additionai”‘cQuxt

fee: csf Rs.iZO{)/- fear the relief sought for in

ciaim. Therefczm, I ‘SS6 110 error of law co;13ujj1ittc=:t:i;’.§:§7y’ tiig

trial mart in recordixlg a ‘

defendantg on i:~:«sue–7’ Even”–oih.@rWis<-5,. :33' I'i*g1i't1§;*"~ %»

submitted by the ieamed fé1*..§2'–.§-:t{:L§R:6, the

ccsurt is always at "the. defléif caurt fee
from the r::spo;;dentsAVa1f£}I~.,fG'_.i§ie:i11"'r(§r3p;5s¢:<§f 0f the subject

mattézg' of thé s.e;i.1;L':o:_1I2i:er zarlaim.
1?, F§3;_ iihe 'af0frés:a._id«-..:*€;é_sons, I do not find an}? case:

magie' 213:1: f£::r» efiiuft ta: inttzrferes with 131$ impugxzed

tfiefgfem, I'€3j€C'i€d.

*~ {£133 aim mafia clear that the Qbsarvatiamfi mafia

abevé shall 139′: in any way irxflucnca: the trial

V. __:i%<::«:..::'"£: while disposing of the suit and tbs cauntar eiaim

on merits, The trial 001.11": is impressed upsn to disvpese

kw
xi

,/'