Allowed

Basappa Dundappa Dandinavar v. Dr. B R Ambedkar Institute of Education

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024WP/105994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order allowing an amendment application and a trust resolution in proceedings under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act. The High Court set aside the unopposed amendment order to permit objections, keeping all contentions open for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.01.2023 on I.A.No.2 set aside; petitioners permitted to file objections; all contentions kept open.

Basappa Dundappa Dandinavar Vs Dr. B R… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105994 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAPPA DUNDAPPA DANDINAVAR,

¶10

AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY IN DR. B R AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION/ SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SC/ST MANAGEMENT, R/O: SUITANPUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.

¶11

SUKUMAR BASAPPA UMMAI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER IN DR. B R AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION/ SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SC/ST MANAGEMENT, R/O: YARNAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN B. MADANALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION/ SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SC/ST MANAGEMENT, R/BY D. SHRIKANT, AGE: 71 YEARS, R/O: SULTANPUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09-01-2023 PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI ON IA NO.2 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE D TO THE WRIT PETITION. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION PASSED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶22

BY THE RESPONDENT TRUST ON 25- 12-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶26

The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

“i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Order dated 09-01-2023 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Belagavi on IA No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 R/W Sec.151 of CPC vide Annexure D to the writ petition.

¶29

ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Resolution passed by the respondent Trust on

¶30

25- 12-2022 vide Annexure C to the writ petition.

¶31

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus, direction, declaration

¶32

or any other appropriate order which to be passed by this Hon’ble Court deemed to fit in favour of the petitioners under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶33

The relevant fact situation leading to the

¶34

present writ petition is that the respondent instituted

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶36

proceedings in Misc. Application No.191/2022 before the Court of the X-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi¹ under Section 3 and 7 of the the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920² . In the said petition, no respondents have been arrayed as parties. In the said proceedings the respondent herein filed I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908³ . The Trial Court, vide order dated 09.01.2023, allowed the said application. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead them in Misc. Application No.191/2022 as respondents 1 and 2. The said application is pending consideration before the Trial Court. In the meantime, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.2 and for other reliefs.

¶37

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjun Madanalli for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri. Nayana Kumar for the respondent.

¶38

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”

¶39

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”

¶40

3 Hereinafter referred to as “CPC”

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶42

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶43

the petitioners that I.A.No.2 having been ordered by the Trial Court prior to filing of I.A.No.4, the said order dated 09.01.2023 is required to be set aside and an opportunity is required to be afforded to the petitioners to file their objections to I.A.No.2.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that having regard to the settled proposition of law there is no requirement for the respondent to take permission in terms of Section 3 and 7 of the Act and there was no requirement for Misc. Applicaiton No.191/2022 to be filed and that the respondent is taking suitable steps in that regard.

¶45

Heard both the learned counsels and perused

¶46

the material on record.

¶47

It is a matter of record that the respondent has filed Misc. Application No. 191/2022 in which proceedings the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to come on record. The said application is pending consideration and the Trial Court is required to adjudicate upon the contentions put forth by the petitioners herein that they are one of the interested parties in the petition

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶49

and that their names have been deleted behind their back without any reason.

¶50

It is relevant to note that I.A.No.2 has been

¶51

filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the petition in Misc. Application No.191/2022 wherein it is contended that by virtue of the meeting held on 25.12.2022 a new advisory committee has been appointed in place of earlier advisory committee. Since there was no opposition to I.A.No.2, the said application has been allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2023.

¶52

It is forthcoming that the petitioners herein

¶53

have objections to I.A.No.2. The said I.A.No.2 having been allowed in the absence of any opposition, it is just and proper that the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.2 be set aside and an opportunity be afforded to the petitioners herein to file their objections to I.A.No.2 and the Trial Court adjudicate upon the interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.4 in accordance with law.

¶54

With regard to the vehement contention of the respondent that the petition in Misc. Application No.191/2022 itself is not maintainable, it is open for the

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17107 WP No. 105994 of 2024

¶56

respondent to take appropriate steps in that regard in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

¶57

Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶60

ii) The order dated 09.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.2 in Misc. Application No. 191/2022 on the file of the X-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside.

¶61

iii) The petitioners are permitted to file their objections to I.A.No.2 on or before next date of hearing before the Trial Court i.e. on or before 26.11.2024 pursuant to which, the Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶62

iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶63

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶64

YAN/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Basappa Dundappa Dandinavar v. Dr. B R Ambedkar Institute of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa Dundappa Dandinavar v. Dr. B R Ambedkar Institute of Education

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

Mahadevi S-O Maruti Kaladgi Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataqka Neeravati Nigama Vs the Special Land

Karnataka Neeravati Nigama Vs the Special Land

Sri. H Kanakaraya S/O Parasappa Vs Hanumesha S/O Sanna Hanumantha

Vijaya W/O Mallappa Ghattad Vs Savitri Alias Hemawati W/O Basappa Ghattad

Jitendra S/O Ratansheti Patil, Vs Yallappa Hanamantha Kottal