Dismissed

Sri Vijay P Shah v. Sri M M Mahesh

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2014WP/39626/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected writ petitions challenging an order rejecting a transfer application made before the Small Causes Court. The Court held that the petitioner could not file a writ since he failed to challenge the impugned order within the limitation period of one year.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions rejected as petitioner is precluded from challenging the order for not doing so within limitation period.

Sri Vijay P Shah Vs Sri M M Mahesh — Karnataka HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS.39626 TO 39627 OF 2014

¶6

Between: Sri Vijay P.Shah S/o Premchand D Shah Aged about 48 years, 19, Tankbund Road Bangalore – 560 009. …Petitioner (By: Sri Abhinav.R, Advocate)

¶7

And:

¶8

Sri M.M.Mahesh S/o M.S.Mallappa, Aged about 42 years Residing at No.66/1, 7^th Cross, 8^th Main, R.M.V.Extension, Bangalore – 560 080. ... Respondent

¶9

These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the III Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in OS No.1584/2007 (Supreme Court 1877/11) at Annexure – D to the writ petition and etc.

¶10

These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner is said to be the defendant in a suit

¶15

for ejectment of the year 2011 pending before the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which had taken a decision that in view of the Full Bench’s decision in the case of ABDUL WAJID v. A.S.ONKARAPPA, reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 , the matter would have to be transferred to the Small Causes Court, since the annual rent did not exceed rupees one lakh. Pursuant to this, the matter was transferred to the Small Causes Court. Before the Small Causes Court, the petitioner again made an application seeking that the matter be re-transferred to the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, as there is an earnest money deposit of �33.00 lakh on which the court fee was payable and that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is taken away. Depending upon the fact that the earnest money deposit was received in the year 2012 and the lease is of the year 2001, the amount of �33.000 lakh allegedly received by the plaintiff could not be made the basis for determining the pecuniary

¶16

¶17

jurisdiction and therefore the Court below has rejected the application.

¶18

The matter having run its course for over a year, the petitioner, if aggrieved ought to have challenged the order, dated 21.6.2011. Since the petitioner did not choose to do so and also having participated before the Small Causes Court, at this stage, when the order not having been challenged earlier he is precluded from doing so now and the question of challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court does not arise at all at this juncture. Hence, these petitions are rejected.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would make a fervent plea that insofar as the earnest money deposit is concerned, there was an issue framed by the Court of Additional City Civil Judge and since the Small Causes Court would follow a summary procedure in adjudicating the matter, it is his apprehension that the issue as regards the earnest money deposit may not be addressed and adjudicated by the Small Causes Court, since it has prejudged the issue and arrived at its findings by the order dated 23.4.2014. Insofar as this

¶20

¶21

aspect of the matter is concerned, since already the matter was transferred to the Small Causes Court, the Small Causes Court will have to adjudicate on the dispute pursuant to the issues, which would be a guiding factor in the orders to be passed, notwithstanding the fact that it follows the summary procedure. Hence, on the basis of the material on record the Small Causes Court has to decide everything, including whether or not there was any earnest money deposit and whether court fee is payable on the earnest money deposit.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

VGR

Sri Vijay P Shah v. Sri M M Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay P Shah v. Sri M M Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanna Vs Manjunath

Smt R Sharadamma Vs Smt Mangala Gowramma

Sri B N Ashwathappa Vs Chikkanarayanappa

Sri. Raghupathy Vs Smt. Saraswathamma

H.P.Devaraju Vs Smt.Puttathayamma

Sri Hanumantharayappa Vs Sri Gangadharappa