Remanded

Sri P S Prakash @ Panchi v. Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024MFA/9404/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Devotees alleged misappropriation and improper administration of Mutt properties by the Matadhipathi in a petition under Section 92 CPC. The Trial Court dismissed their interlocutory applications as the plaint was filed belatedly with the miscellaneous petition. The High Court held technicalities should not defeat a public-interest suit, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders in I.A.Nos.II and III set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for decision on merits.

Sri P S Prakash @ Panchi Vs Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 9404 OF 2012 (CPC)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 9403 OF 2012(CPC)

¶8

IN MFA No.9404/2012:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI P S PRAKASH @ PANCHI S/O LATE P.SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MANJUNATHA NAGAR CHICKAPET TUMKUR TOWN – 572 101.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI INNAHALLI VEERANNA S/O SRI INHALLI VEERASANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DOOR No.1225 SANJEEVINI NAGARA SHIVAKUMARSWAMY EXTENSION DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶14

(BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI JAGDGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHANMAT PB ROAD, CHITTRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MATADHIPATHI AND SOLE TRUSTEE SRI NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMIGALU.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶19

SRI SRIMAN NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMUGALU @ SHIVAMURTHY SHARANARU AND SOLE TRUSTEE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SREE JAGADGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHNMUTT, P.B.ROAD CHITHRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI K.S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOLALAKER TOWN HOLALAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA TALUK.

¶21

SRI S.N.CHETHANA S/O SRI S.V.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT. SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI JAGADEESHA S.N. S/O SRI S.V.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHIRTADURGA DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI S.N.LOKESHA S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶24

SRI D.M.LINAGARAJU S/O SRI MADESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶26

SRI SANJEEVA KUMARA S/O SRI MUDIGOWDA PATILA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DEVAGIRI YALLAPURA NOW RESIDING AT BASAVANAGARA HAVERI.

¶27

SRI D.S.ANANDAKUMAR S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT DEVAGIRI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANALORE SOUTH DISTRICT.

¶28

N.M.PUSHPAVALLI D/O SRI K.R.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. UPPUNEERUBAVI ROAD BURUJANAHATTI, 3^RD BLOCK CHITRADURGA.

¶29

SMT. T.HONNAMMA W/O SRI N.SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT, CHIKKABANSUR VILLAGE SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶30

SRI A KOTRAPPA S/O SRI CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. 3^RD MAIN, H.No.176 P.G.BADAVANE DAVANAGERE.

¶31

SRI B.S. DAYANANDA S/O SRI B.SHEKHARAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/AT. SHAVANUR KASABA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK.

¶32

SRI E.SHANTHARAM S/O LATE E.RAJAPPA

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶34

AGE:MAJOR, R/AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD H.No.516/4, ANAJANEYA BADAVANE DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE TALUK.

¶35

SRI K.S.MANJUNATHA S/O SRI KADLEBAU SANNANARAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/AT.B.KALAVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK.

¶36

SRI O.SANJU S/O SRI OTAMAL AGE: MAJOR, R/AT. 3^RD BLOCK OLD POST OFFICE ROAD CHITRADURGA.

¶37

SRI M.NISHANI JAYANNA S/O LATE G.N.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. 3^RD BLOCK, NEAR BURUJANAHATTI HATTI MARAMMA TEMPLE CHITRADURGA.

¶38

SRI P.MITHUNKUMAR S/O SRI PRUTHVIRAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 4^TH BLOCK, VASAVI MAHAL ROAD CHITRADURGA.

¶39

SRI V.BABULAL JAIN S/O SRI.VASRAJ G. AGE : MAJOR, R/AT 3^RD BLOCK, HOLALAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI B S MURALI, ADVOCATE R1 & R2

¶42

R3- R10, R11 & R13 TO R 19 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD. 21.1.19 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R10 AND R12 H/S)

¶43

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.29.08.2012 PASSED ON I.A.No.II IN MISC.No.115/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING I.A.No.II FILED U/O 1 RULE 8 R/W

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶45

SECTION 151 OF CPC AND R/W SECTION 92(1) OF CPC AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THEREBY MISC.PETITION IS DISMISSED.

¶46

IN MFA No.9403/2012:

¶47

BETWEEN :

¶48

SRI P S PRAKASH @ PANCHI S/O LATE P.SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MANJUNATHA NAGAR CHICKAPET TUMKUR TOWN – 572 101.

¶49

SRI INNAHALLI VEERANNA S/O SRI INHALLI VEERASANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DOOR No.1225 SANJEEVINI NAGARA SHIVAKUMARSWAMY EXTENSION DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶50

…APPELLANTS

¶51

(BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

SRI JAGDGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHANMAT PB ROAD, CHITTRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MATADHIPATHI AND SOLE TRUSTEE

¶54

SRI NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMIGALU – 577 501.

¶55

SRI SRIMAN NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMUGALU @ SHIVAMURTHY SHARANARU AND SOLE TRUSTEE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SREE JAGADGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHNMUTT, P.B.ROAD CHITHRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶57

SRI K.S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOLALAKER TOWN HOLALAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577 526.

¶58

SRI S.N.CHETHANA S/O SRI S.V.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT. SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶59

SRI JAGADEESHA S.N. S/O SRI S.V.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHIRTADURGA DISTRICT -577 501.

¶60

SRI S.N.LOKESHA S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 501.

¶61

SRI D.M.LINAGARAJU S/O SRI MADESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 520.

¶62

SRI SANJEEVA KUMARA S/O SRI MUDIGOWDA PATILA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DEVAGIRI YALLAPURA NOW RESIDING AT BASAVANAGARA HAVERI – 581 110.

¶63

SRI D.S.ANANDAKUMAR S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶65

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT DEVAGIRI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANALORE SOUTH DISTRICT -560 060.

¶66

N.M.PUSHPAVALLI D/O SRI K.R.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. UPPUNEERUBAVI ROAD BURUJANAHATTI, 3^RD BLOCK CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶67

SMT. T.HONNAMMA W/O SRI N.SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT, CHIKKABANSUR VILLAGE SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK

¶68

CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶69

SRI A KOTRAPPA S/O SRI CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. 3^RD MAIN, H.No.176 P.G.BADAVANE DAVANAGERE – 577 502.

¶70

SRI B.S. DAYANANDA S/O SRI B.SHEKHARAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/AT. SHAVANUR KASABA HOBLI

¶71

DAVANAGERE TALUK – 577 504.

¶72

SRI E.SHANTHARAM S/O LATE E.RAJAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD H.No.516/4, ANAJANEYA BADAVANE DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE TALUK – 577 504.

¶73

SRI K.S.MANJUNATHA S/O SRI KADLEBAU SANNANARAPPA AGE:MAJOR, R/AT.B.KALAVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DAVANAGERE TALUK – 577 504.

¶74

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶75

SRI O.SANJU S/O SRI OTAMAL AGE: MAJOR, R/AT. 3^RD BLOCK OLD POST OFFICE ROAD CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶76

SRI M.NISHANI JAYANNA S/O LATE G.N.MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. 3^RD BLOCK, NEAR BURUJANAHATTI HATTI MARAMMA TEMPLE CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶77

SRI P.MITHUNKUMAR S/O SRI PRUTHVIRAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 4^TH BLOCK, VASAVI MAHAL ROAD CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶78

SRI V.BABULAL JAIN S/O SRI.VASRAJ G. AGE : MAJOR, R/AT 3^RD BLOCK, HOLALAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN -577 501.

¶79

…RESPONDENTS

¶80

(BY SRI B S MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3-R19 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶81

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2012 PASSED ON I.A.No.III IN MISC. No.115/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING I.A.No.III AS IT DOES NOT SURVIVE, FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC AND ETC.,

¶82

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶83

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶84

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶85

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶86

Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.II and II in Misc.No.115/2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga dated 29.08.2012, the petitioner before the Trial Court is before this Court.

¶87

The facts of the case are that; the petitioners are the members of the Veerashaiva Community and the devotees of defendant No.1 - Mutt. They are interested in the upliftment, care, cause and development of defendant No.1 - Mutt. It is their case that the Matadhipathi is misusing, managing and misappropriating the funds and is not administering the Mutt in a proper way. In the petition, they have stated about the properties that were sold by the matadhipathi. According to them, there is no requirement to sell the properties and they have given list of the transactions with regard to the properties that were sold. The relief that is sought by them is (i) for declaration that defendant No.2 is unfit and unsuitable to continue as Matadhipathi and to remove him from the place of Matadhyaksha or Matadhipathi of defendant No.1 - Mutt, (ii) for appointment of new Matadhipathi of defendant No.1 – Mutt, (iii) for framing a scheme for proper administration of defendant No.1

¶88

Mutt and its properties including the suit

¶89

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶90

schedule properties, (iv) to direct defendant No.2 to render accounts of defendant No.1 – Mutt and its properties. (v) for declaration of the alienation made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 11 as null and void and not binding on defendant No.1 – Mutt.

¶91

According to them, the Mutt is registered as a public Trust, as such, they have filed an application under Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C, seeking permission of the Court and also under Order XXXIX of C.P.C, restraining the Matadhipathi from creating the third party rights. The Trial Court by the order impugned has dismissed both the I.As filed by the applicants. While dismissing the applications, the Court has observed that Misc.No.115/2010 is an independent and separate application under Section 92 of C.P.C, then, it has to be accompanied with the plaint. Apparently, Misc.No.115/2010 application, if it is considered as an application under Section 92 of C.P.C, it is not accompanied with the plaint, the plaint ought to have been filed along with Misc.No.115/2010 on 28.06.2010, was filed on 25.08.2012 belated filing of the plaint cannot be construed as it is an accompanied plaint to Misc.No.115/2010. Then, how the respondents could know the allegations that are going to

¶92

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶93

be made in the plaint, so that they could vindicate, agitate and argue the application filed under Section 92 of C.P.C, to the extent of taking grounds about its maintainability. The strait which the respondents have got that they could not vindicate it as the plaintiffs have not accompanied the application in Misc.No.115/2010 with the plaint. Therefore, when the application under Section 92 of C.P.C is not accompanied with the paint, incase leave is granted, the plaint is going to be registered as the original suit, then, under such circumstances, even Misc.No.115/2010 is not maintainable. As Misc.No.115/2010 is not maintainable, then I.A.No.2 which is in the nature of interlocutory application is also not maintainable and accordingly, the Court has dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred these appeals before this Court. Initially, there is an order passed by the Court directing the defendants not to create the third party rights. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments till 2019. The respondents are not served. Several times the appellants have sought time for taking steps and finally, by way of a substituted service, the notice is served on the respondents.

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶96

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trust is registered as a public Trust and on technicalities, the Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants. It is submitted that when an application filed under Section 92 of C.P.C, stands on a different footing and when it is in the public

¶97

interest, The Court on technicalities cannot dismiss the petition. Learned counsel had relied on the judgments of this Court and also the Hon’ble Apex Court. He had relied on the judgment in the case of Venkataramiah Setty Vs. Puttamma¹ , he had relied on another judgment in the case of

¶98

P.Viswanatham Vs. Bangalore Club and Ors.² that

¶99

technicalities must not interfere with justice and the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to remove the deficiencies. He had also relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Prof.M.S.Padmarajaiah & Ors. Vs. Commissioner,

¶100

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Ors.³ Relying on all on

¶101

these judgments, learned counsel submits that this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that when a suit is filed under Section 92 of C.P.C, without going into the

¶102

1 I.L.R 1996 Kar 549

¶103

2 I.L.R 1999 Kar 2016

¶104

3 2007 (6) Kar R1

¶105

13 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶107

technicalities, the Court has to consider the same independently and in the interest of justice. It is submitted that when the vast properties of the Mutt were alienated, it is a clear mis-appropriation of funds of the Mutt and all those aspects were not considered by the Trial Court and on the technical aspects, it is dismissed. It is submitted that the order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court and the Trial Court may be directed to independently decide the case on the merits of it.

¶108

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mutt submits that along with miscellaneous petition, when they have to file the plaint along with the suit, the same was filed in the year 2010 and the application is filed in the year 2012. The Court had rightly observed in the order that unless and until the plaint is filed along with the miscellaneous petition and unless and until the notice is ordered, unless and until the defendant is aware of what are the allegations that are made against the defendant, he would not be in a position to controvert the same. He submits that if there are any bonafidies on the part of the appellants herein, they would have filed the plaint along with the miscellaneous application

¶109

14 -

¶110

NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶111

in the year 2010 itself. According to the learned counsel, in view of the disputes, or rather as the appellants are on loggerheads with the defendants, have come up with this petition only to settle their personal scores and there is no public interest involved in this. He submits that at this point of time, after more than twelve years, remanding the matter would not serve the purpose and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

¶112

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused

¶113

the entire material on record.

¶114

The miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 92 of C.P.C, raising several allegations against the defendant – Trust

¶115

for misappropriation made by the Matadhipathi. The suit is filed in the year 2010. There is no dispute about the procedure contemplated under Section 92 of C.P.C. In this case, it is also

¶116

an admitted fact that the plaint is filed in the year 2010. The pre-requisite for maintaining a suit under Section 92 of C.P.C is, it should be a public Trust and they should make out a prima facie case and basing on the same, the Court grants leave to the applicant to pursue the suit. When a suit filed

¶117

15 -

¶118

NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶119

under Section 92 of C.P.C, it is a suit of a special nature which is more of a public interest. The Court had taken into consideration the catena of judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Court ought not to have dismissed it, more on a technical grounds if there are any technicalities which were not complied with by the plaintiff as well. The Court should have granted permission to the party to comply with the same and ought to have considered it in the light of Section 92 of C.P.C. Whether the defendant – Mutt is a public Trust, whether the plaintiffs have made out of a prima facie case should have been the consideration of the Court and the remaining technical aspects can always be rectified when the plaintiff is given permission to do so. Unfortunately, a petition that is filed alleging misappropriation in the year 2010 is pending before this Court till 2024. Right from that date, till now, much water is flown. If at all the kind of allegations that were made by the appellants herein against the defendants are true, it would have caused much more loss to the Mutt and to the public trust in these twelve years. Coming to the scope and ambit of these appeals and the petition filed by them, in the considered opinion of the Court, the Trial Court

¶120

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:33525 MFA No. 9404 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9403 of 2012

¶121

went more on technicalities and dismissed the petition. It is submitted that if the objections are not filed, the defendants shall be given an opportunity to file the objections and after considering whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the applicants, then the Court shall consider. Hence, the following;

¶122

ORDER

¶123

(i) In view of the above discussions, the order impugned dated 29.08.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.II and III in Misc.No.115/2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, before this Court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall hear this matter and decide the suit as explicitly as possible.

¶124

(ii) In the light of the above, both the appeals are disposed of .

¶125

(iii) All IA’s in the appeal shall stand closed.

¶126

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶127

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

¶128

Sri P S Prakash @ Panchi v. Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P S Prakash @ Panchi v. Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr R Chitti Babu Vs Mr L Daniel

The Executive Engineer, Vs M.P.G. Hanumanthappa

Sri Ramakrishna Bhat Vs Mr Diwakara N Shetty

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri T Revanna

Sri Lingaraj M Vs Smt. Sahana R

V Ranganathan Vs B v Kiran Kumar