Disposed

Gowramma v. Kalamma

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2014WP/30818/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this preliminary hearing of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a Section 11 CPC plea, the Court held that the Trial Court was duty-bound to consider questions of law on res judicata even without a framed issue and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that the Trial Court should have considered the plea of res judicata.

Gowramma Vs Kalamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 30818 OF 2010 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Gowramma,

¶9

Aged about 70 years, Wife of Rajanna @ Revanasiddaiah, Chowlihalli, Honnavalli Hobli,

¶10

Tiptur Taluk,

¶11

Tumakuru District.

¶12

Since dead, represented by her Legal Representatives Respondents 2 to 5, as follows:

¶13

Netravathi,

¶14

Aged about 50 years, Wife of Revanna, Halenahalli, Honnavalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶15

Nagamma,

¶16

Aged about 46 years, Wife of Shivalingappa,

¶17

Swarnagowri,

¶18

¶19

Aged about 38 years, Daughter of Rajanna,

¶20

Indiramma, Aged about 35 years, Wife of Jagadish,

¶21

Sl.Nos. 4 and 5 are Residents of Chowlihalli, Honnavalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶22

[Cause-title amended as per the court order dated 11.08.2014]

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(By Shri. M. Vinayakeerthy, Advocate)

¶25

AND:

¶26

Kalamma, Aged about 65 years, Daughter of Veeregowda, Chowlihalli,Honnavalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(By Shri. M.S.Purushothama Rao, Advocate)

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

¶30

the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned

¶31

¶32

order in I.A.No.21, dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tiptur vide Annexure-K in O.S.No.13/1995.

¶33

This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo reporting the death of Petitioner No.1 and claims that Petitioners 2 to 5 are his legal representatives and that they may be treated as his legal representatives. Accordingly, the petitioner to amend the cause-title.

¶36

The present petitioners are said to be the defendants

¶37

before the court below who had filed written statement. But subsequently, on account of subsequent events, the petitioners having latently learnt about the very claim of the respondent who was the plaintiff in an earlier suit having been decided against them, had sought to file an application raising the plea

¶38

¶39

of res judicata . The same is said to have been rejected by the Trial Court and hence the present petition.

¶40

If indeed there was a plea of res judicata available to the petitioners, on the basis of established facts and did not require the petitioner to establish any additional facts or require him to lead evidence to demonstrate that the rigour of Section 11 of the CPC was attracted, the same would be a legal contention, it could be urged on the merits of the case even at the time of final arguments.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners however would submit that since there is no issue framed by the court in this regard, it may not be considered by the court below.

¶42

This would not be in accordance with law since, if an aspect is brought to the attention of a court on a pure question of law, it is the duty of the court to consider whether it would indeed apply and to give its finding on the said contention. If no issue is framed, there is no bar for the court to frame and re-

¶43

¶44

frame issues at any stage and that being the case, it would be expected that if indeed the plea of res judicata is sustainable, the Trial Court would consider the same and give its findings,

¶45

even at the final stage of the proceedings.

¶46

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Gowramma v. Kalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma v. Kalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt. Y N Amaravathi

Sri Chikkalingaiah Vs M.Venkatesh

Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath Vs M/S. Karnataka Kshatriya

Sri Bapakunhi Vs Sri Vishwanatha Rai

Sri B Raghuveer Acharya Vs Smt N S Geetha

Union of India Vs Smt.Venkatamma