The High Court at Bengaluru dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the rejection of a non-suit application in a suit under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, invoking Article 227 reasoning.
Writ petition dismissed; cost made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
LATE SMT. GANGAMMA, (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS)
1 . SRI. SHIVAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAIAH,
2 . SRI. MAHALINGAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAIAH,
BOTH THE RESIDING AT: AMBALAGERE VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHESHADRI N.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
LATE SRI. ESHWARAIAH, (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTD BY LRS)
1 . SMT. SARWAMANGALAMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O LATE ESHWARAIAH,
2 . SMT. SAROJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE ESHWARAIAH,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO 58, AMBALAGERE VILLAGE,
2
DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALUUR RURAL DISTRICT – 561 204.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARLINGAPPA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) & JMFC IN O.S.NO.285/2006 AT DODDABALAPURA ON IA FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND (D) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AS PER ANNX-A, AND TO ALLOW THE SAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the defendants in a declaration suit in O.S.No.285/2006 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 04.01.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, has rejected their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC, 1908.
having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the grounds on which it has been structured.
3
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, non-suiting of dominant litis is a serious matter and that it cannot be done readily; this norm has animated the impugned order; the learned Judge of the Court below having considered all aspects of the matter has declined to non-suit the respondents and such discretionary orders do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of the writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 vide SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER, (2003) 3 SCC 524.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Cost made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 writ jurisdiction can be exercised to quash the order of the civil court rejecting a non-suit application due to discretionary nature.
Whether the norm against non-suiting of a dominant litigant precludes deep examination of discretionary orders under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHERReferred¶31
SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER, (2003) 3 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. SHIVAGANGAIAH
SRI. MAHALINGAMURTHY
SMT. SARWAMANGALAMA
SMT. SAROJA
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
