This petition challenged the Senior Civil Judge's rejection of an application to defer an appeal pending a transfer decision. The High Court found no error in the rejection despite the petitioner's insistence on avoiding adverse observations during appeal disposal.
Petition disposed of; prayer to quash the impugned order rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7493/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
KRISHNA RAJ S/O LATE MUNI KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF BILIDEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 130.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE)
AND :
SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O H N PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HULIKATTE, MADABALA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT NO.20A, 7TH CROSS MATHRU LAYOUT,YALANAKA UPANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 003.
... RESPONDENT
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL ON I.A.NO.7 IN M.A.NO.27/2015 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H WITH DIRECTION TO THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL TO AWAIT THE DECISION OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT TUMKUR IN CIVIL MISC.NO.391/2021 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the appellant in MA No.27/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kunigal (for short, ‘ Appellate Court’ ), has impugned the Appellate Court’s order dated 16.2.2022.
The Appellate Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioner’s application [IA No.7] under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is seen from the impugned order that the Appellate Court while rejecting the petitioner’s application has also adjourned the appeal to extend another opportunity to
3
the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed fresh vakalath, to take necessary measures to ensure petitioner’s due representation in the appeal.
Sri Gangadharappa A.V., learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent has instituted the suit in O.S.No.205/2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal. The respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed by the Civil Judge, and the petitioner has called in question this order in MA No.27/2015. The petitioner has also filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.42/2015 before the Appellate Court. The petitioner has sought for declaration of his undivided legitimate interest in the property that is also the subject matter of the respondent’s suit in O.S.No.205/2015. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the suit in
4
O.S.No.205/2015 for a common decision in the petitioner’s suit in O.S.No.42/2015. The learned District Judge has granted stay of further proceedings in the petitioner’s suit in O.S.No.42/2015. The outcome of the appeal in MA No.27/2015 would a bearing for disposal of two suits. Hence, the petitioner has filed application [IA No.7] for deference of consideration of the appeal.
This Court, on considering the circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not persuaded to opine that there is any error in appellate Court rejecting the petitioner’s application. As regards the apprehension canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if there is any observation by the Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal, it would be in the context of such disposal and cannot have a bearing on the outcome of either the respondent’s suit
5
in O.S.No.205/2015 or the petitioner’s suit in O.S.No.42/2015.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
SA/Ct:sr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash the Appellate Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for deferment of consideration in an appeal.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna Raj S/o Late Muni Kalaiah
Smt. Lalithamma W/o H N Prakash
B. M. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
