Allowed

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023WP/100033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a review petition. The writ court found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try a commercial dispute post-designation of a Commercial Court. The impugned order and earlier judgment were set aside, and the suit was restored and directed for transfer to the designated Commercial Court.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dismissing review petition; set aside earlier judgment and decree; restore suit to file; direct transfer of suit to designated Commercial Court.

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur Vs the Government of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100033 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100033 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVINDRA S/O DUNDAPPA KITTUR, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. CLASS I CONTRACTOR, R/O GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI 590002

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE OF MINOR IRRIGATION NORTH ZONE VIJAYPUR 587101

¶15

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.01.20 10:17:56 +0530

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION BELAGAVI CIRCLE BELAGAVI 590002

¶17

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION BELAGAVI BELAGAVI 590002

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION GOKAK GOKAK 590002

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100033 of 2023

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN REVIEW PETITION NO.1/2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID REVIEW PETITION NO.1/2018 BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. B. CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK TO TRANSFER O.S.NO.114/2014 TO THE COMMERCIAL COURT.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Gokak in Review Petition No.1/2018 whereby the said review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

The material on record discloses that on 26.03.2014, petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.114/2014 claiming Rs.3,84,03,010/- along with interest against the respondents. On 31.12.2015, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 having coming into force, notifications dated 21.09.2017 and

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100033 of 2023

¶31

08.11.2017 were issued designating the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge of the district as the Commercial Court. Subsequently on 03.03.2018, despite the aforesaid notifications and coming into force of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as a result of which, the trial Court did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to decide the suit which arose out of commercial dispute, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on merits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a review petition specifically bringing to the notice of the trial Court that in view of coming into force of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 coupled with the notifications designating the Commercial Court, the trial Court which was a non-designated Commercial Court did not have jurisdiction or authority of law and could not have passed the impugned judgment and decree on merits in view of the inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court to adjudicate the suit on merits. The aforesaid review petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order which is called in question in the present petition.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioner, pursuant to coming into force of the Commercial

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100033 of 2023

¶36

Courts Act, 2015 and the Commercial Courts being designated vide notifications dated 21.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 whereby the X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi was designated as the Commercial Court, the trial Court i.e. the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gokak had inherent lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit which ought to have been transferred to the District Court by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and failure on the part of the trial Court to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion. So also, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the Review Petition No.1/2018 will clearly indicate that the trial Court has committed a grave and serious error in failing to consider the inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court which proceeded to dispose off the suit on merits despite not having jurisdiction or authority of law to do so which is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the Review Petition No.1/2018 as well as the judgment and decree dated

¶37

¶38

WP No. 100033 of 2023

¶39

03.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.114/2014 deserve to be set aside consequent upon which the suit has to be directed to be transferred to the designated Commercial Court to be decided in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The petition is allowed.

¶42

ii. The impugned order dated 28.11.2022 is hereby set aside. Consequently, Review Petition No.1/2018 filed by the petitioner also stands allowed.

¶43

iii. Consequent upon allowing Review Petition No.1/2018, the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gokak is hereby set aside and the suit is restored to file.

¶44

iv. Pursuant to restoration of the suit in O.S.No.114/2014 by virtue of this order, the trial Court is directed to transfer the suit to the jurisdictional designated Commercial Court who shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

CLK

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur v. the Government of Karnataka

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

Revansiddayya S/O Sharnayya Shivappayyanamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Fakirappa Arer Vs the Superintendent of Police, Haveri

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli Vs the Executive Engineer (Elec)

Smt. Premavva W/O Devappa Uppar Vs Dyamappa S/O Kariyappa Bhavi @ Kinnal

Sri. Jayaprakash Gangadharappa Tenginakai Vs Sri. Ashok Krishnappa Banakatti