Dismissed

Mr Mohammed Maaz Shariff v. the Robin Hood Project Trust

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023CP/373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, dismissed a petition filed under Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of CPC seeking withdrawal and transfer of an original civil suit. The court rejected the petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations against trial court officials regarding summons issuance and denied the request for transfer.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner.

Mr Mohammed Maaz Shariff Vs the Robin Hood… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CIVIL PETITION NO. 373 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR.MOHAMMED MAAZ SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O.MR.MUJAHID ALI NO.55/1, 6^TH MAIN NEW GURAPPANPALYA BGT MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 029

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(PETITIONER/PARTY IN PERSON)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST REG.NO.1438 REG.YEAR 2014-2015 NEW DELHI, E-210 ANAND LOK APARTMENTS MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI – 110 091

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR.SHUBHAM PATHAK VOLUNTEER IN BENGALURU THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶13

MR.VIKASH AGARWAL VOLUNTEER IN BENGALURU THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶14

MISS.PRIYANKA BAGLA VOLUNTEER IN BENGALURU THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶15

¶16

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶17

MISS.POOJA VOLUNTEER IN MUMBAI THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶18

MR.NEEL GHOSH FOUNDER VOLUNTEER IN NEW DELHI THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶19

MR. SANCHIT JAIN CENTRAL TEAM VOLUNTEER IN NEW DELHI THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶20

R-2 TO R-7 AT E-210, ANAND LOK APARTMENTS MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-I NEW DELHI – 110 091

¶21

MISS.AARUSHI BATRA NO.D-48, EAST OF KAILASH NEW DELHI-110 065 TRUSTEE THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶22

MR. ANAND SINHA NO.CI/16 HUMAYUN ROAD NEW DELHI-110 003 TRUSTEE THE ROBIN HOOD PROJECT TRUST

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(R-8 IS SERVED)

¶25

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24(1)(b) (ii) OF CPC PRAYING TO WITHDRAW OS.NO.451/2022 PENDING BEFORE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-8), BENGALURU AND TO TRANSFER THE ABOVE SUIT FOR TRIAL TO ANY COURT SUBORDINATE TO THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner/party-in-person, Sri Mohammed Maaz Shariff, who is present before the Court, is aged 31 years, B.Com graduate and resident of Bengaluru.

¶31

The present petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶32

“i) to withdraw the O.S.No.451 pending before XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH8), Bengaluru and transfer the above suit for trial to any Court subordinate to this Hon’ble High Court in Bengaluru;

¶33

ii) The Court appoints an amicus for maintainability of the case as the petitioner is not from a legal background.”

¶34

Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 9 was taken out and

¶35

respondent No.8 has been served but unrepresented. However, notices to respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 9 are not served as the postal shara is returned with an endorsement as ‘no such person in the said address’.

¶36

In the original suit proceedings, notice to the very same respondents was issued and is awaited. The party-inperson had filed a suit in original suit in O.S.No.451/2022

¶37

¶38

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶39

against the respondents/defendants seeking for the following reliefs:

¶40

“i) Direct the police department for an enquiry on the matter;

¶41

ii) Direct the defendants for reinstating the plaintiff in whatsapp group like before; and

¶42

iii) The plaintiff be awarded the cost for mental agony caused and for reputation lost, left to wise and sensible judgment of the Court.”

¶43

It is the contention of party-in-person that the original suit proceedings was filed on 18.01.2022, notice came to be issued on 02.02.2022 and notice was again ordered on 21.02.2022, as the summons which was sent had not returned. But, when the petitioner verified with the pending branch of trial Court, he was informed that there was some deficit process fee of Rs.103/- for the summons to be issued and accordingly, he has paid the said amount and the notice/ summons came to be issued against the respondents/ defendants, which is awaited. On 29.03.2022, when the petitioner enquired with the pending branch once again, the petitioner realised that there was some IA appearing in the online notification of the trial Court and when he enquired with

¶44

¶45

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶46

the pending branch on the same, he was informed that it is a regular practice of issuance of notice on the main as well as on IA and there is nothing pending from the petitioner’s end.

¶47

It is the case of the party-in-person that on 06.06.2022 i.e. on the next date of hearing, the Presiding Officer was not available due to some training and the bench clerk gave the date and informed that notices have already been issued to the said respondents/defendants and the same are awaited. Thereafter on 28.07.2022, the petitioner was informed that the summons has not been issued. It is submitted by the party-in-person that he has argued before the Court that it is the failure on the part of the Court, if they have not issued the summons. The party-in-person further contends that he has already paid the process fee as sought for with regard to deficit despite which, the summons was not issued. Under these circumstances, it is the contention of the party-inperson that either the Court officials or the Presiding Officer before the trial Court are lying to the petitioner and not giving the correct information to the petitioner.

¶48

¶49

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶50

It is his further contention that after he checked online status on 29.07.2022, he was shocked to see the process details dated 21.02.2022 as ‘summons for disposal of the suit’ and ‘notice to show cause’, which the party-in-person was totally unaware and it is his contention that he has been kept in dark. Accordingly, he has filed the present petition on the ground that he has been denied justice and so also justice is delayed by the Civil Court, wherein the original suit is pending adjudication.

¶51

It is also urged by the party-in-person that he has encountered a very unpleasant experience in the Civil Court and he has been kept under dark with regard to process details and different officials interacting with him on different occasions and also different Judges being posted on different dates of hearing and giving different reasons/answers with regard to the proceedings, which is filed by him in O.S.No.451/2022.

¶52

Though this Court has ordered notice to the respondents, there is no relief sought as against them in this petition, as this petition is filed seeking transfer of the original suit from the Court of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions

¶53

¶54

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶55

Judge (CCH-8) to any other Court subordinate to this Court for disposal of the matter in accordance with law. I do not find any reasons for issuance of notice to the respondents herein, as no relief is sought against them in this petition.

¶56

The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that he is unsatisfied with the unpleasant experience he has met with in the City Civil Court with regard to the Presiding Officer, the Judges and transferred judges due to either training or absent reasons or leave, so also, with regard to pending clerks, bench clerks and the answers given to him with regard to proceedings of the case. It is also seen that due to these unpleasant experience of giving wrong information, the partyin-person contends that the Court officials, staff namely, pending clerks, bench clerks including judges are lying to him and are providing half truth with regard to service of summons and issuance of notice to the respondents. Hence, on these grounds, the petitioner is before this Court invoking the provisions under Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of CPC. Section 24(1)(b)(ii) of CPC reads as under:

¶57

“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.−(1) On the application of any of the

¶58

¶59

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶60

parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage−

¶61

(a) Xxxxxxxx (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and− (i) xxxxx; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) xxxx

¶62

Having heard the petitioner, party-in-person, the

¶63

point for consideration is:

¶64

“Whether the present petition deserves to be allowed on the pleadings made and grounds urged in the petition to withdraw and transfer the above suit in O.S.No.451/2022 to any other Court subordinate to this Court i.e. to any other Civil Court in Bengaluru?”

¶65

In order to invoke the provisions of Section

¶66

24(1)(b)(ii) of CPC with regard to transfer of the suit or

¶67

¶68

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶69

withdrawal of the suit proceedings to any other Court, the petitioner has to make out cogent and effective reasons with regard to there being apprehension of the petitioner in respect of the trial Court not exercising its power, jurisdiction and wisdom in disposal of the suit in the manner known to law in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the procedure to be followed in disposal of the suit.

¶70

The party-in-person has not made out any ground in the present petition with regard to there being any injustice i.e. caused to him except by making sweeping, scathing, unsubstantiated allegations against two of the Presiding Officers, bench clerks and pending clerks with regard to the information alleged to have been given, which is half truth i.e. told to him . The party-in-person, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, is at liberty to obtain information by obtaining certified copy of the trial Court proceedings, which is available at certain cost by making an application and verify with regard to the details of what is happening in the Court proceedings. The Court proceedings are open Court proceedings and it is not incamera proceedings or hidden from the public including the petitioner himself.

¶71

10 -

¶72

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶73

The petitioner cannot have the liberty to chose the Court according to his whims and fancies merely because there

¶74

is some typographical error in the order sheet or in computerized version of the order showing issuance of notice on IA, which is again unsubstantiated. The order sheet dated 28.07.2022 of the trial Court shows that - ‘Issue suit summons to defendant Nos.1 to 9 by RPAD, if process fee and correct address are furnished, returnable by 09-11.2022’. Under these circumstances, the trial Court proceedings is yet to commence as it is still in the stage of issuance of suit summons to the respondents/defendants, as the same is awaited.

¶75

The party-in-person has approached this Court seeking for the relief of transfer of the suit from one Court to the other on the ground that the experience which he has met with the pending staff, bench clerk and the learned judges is unpleasant. The said ground urged for transfer of the suit is not satisfactory and is unreasonable and I do not find any cogent good ground made out by party-in-person to transfer the suit from XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH8) to any other Court, as there is no illegality or perversity or

¶76

11 -

¶77

CP No. 373 of 2022

¶78

injustice or bias against the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed with costs.

¶79

The petitioner has wasted the time of this Court and has made scathing remarks without there being any basis. Therefore, the petitioner is saddled with a cost of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be paid within a period of two weeks, failing which, precipitative action be taken against the party-in-person for recovery of cost.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mr Mohammed Maaz Shariff v. the Robin Hood Project Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Maaz Shariff v. the Robin Hood Project Trust

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

Lrs of Wahid Baig Vs Sri Chamaraju

Smt. S Sandya Vs Sri Raghavendra C

Sri.M.Koteshwara Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G Sheela Vs Dr. Chandrashekar S D

Jain Heritage School Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O Mallappa Ganiger Since Deceased by His Lrs Gourawwa W/O Chennaveerappa Matti and Other Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Others