Dismissed

Mahadevi W/O. Manik Desai v. Kallavva W/O. Mallangouda Patil

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/106784/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Trial Court's permission to withdraw suit with liberty to file fresh one pending before Land Tribunal. Petitioners argued no liberty past limitation; High Court rejected quashing, finding no grounds to interfere with Trial Court's reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no directions to the Trial Court.

Mahadevi W/O. Manik Desai Vs Kallavva W/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106784 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. MANIK DESAI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAMPIGENAGAR, PLOT NO.56, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.

¶10

SHRI MOHAN S/O. MANIK DESAI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMPIGENAGAR, PLOT NO.56, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. MALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIHALLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-59000, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

SAROJA HANGARAKI

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. MALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURUVINKOPPA, TQ: KALGHATAGI-583101, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

SMT. IRAVVA W/O. BASANGOUDA SHIBHARGATTI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DUMMAVAD, TQ: KALGHATAGI-581301, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

SHRI MADIVALGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶20

4(A) SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. MADIVALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶22

R/O. KAVALGERI VILLAGE, AMMINBHAVI HOBLI,

¶23

TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶24

4(B) SHRI RUDRAGOUDA S/O. MADIVALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI VILLAGE, AMMINBHAVI HOBLI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶25

4(C) SHRI SHANKARGOUDA S/O. MADIVALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI VILLAGE, AMMINBHAVI HOBLI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶26

4(D) SHRI IRANAGOUDA S/O. MADIVALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI VILLAGE, AMMINBHAVI HOBLI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶27

SHRI CHANNABASANAGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶28

SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. KALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOSETTI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001. SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S

¶29

6(A) SHRI NINGANAGOUDA S/O. KALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶30

6(B) SHRI MADIWALAGOUDA S/O. KALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HOSETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶31

6(C) SHRI MANJUNATH S/O. KALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HOSETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶32

6(D) SHRI BASANAGOUDA S/O. KALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HOSETTI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶33

6(E) SMT. POORNIMA @ LAXMI W/O. BASAPPA @ BASAVANNEPPA HALLIGERI,

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶35

AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DASANUR (JODALLI) VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI-581204, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶36

SHRI RAMANGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVALGERI, TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶37

SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. CHANNABASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANCHINAL, TQ: SAVADATTI-590026, DIST: BELGAUM-580001.

¶38

SHRI ILIYASAHAMMED VALLAD S/O. SHIRAJAHAMMED MULLA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KILLA, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. P.K. SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADV. FOR R1, R2, R3 & R5; SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR R4(A-D); R6(A) TO R6(E) ARE SERVED; R8-SERVED; R9 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2014 IN O.S.NO.119/2009 ON I.A.NO.4 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM DHARWAD AT:DHARWAD, VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND REJECT THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-D, DATED 09.01.2013 AND ETC.

¶42

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶47

and learned counsels for the respondents.

¶48

The present petition is filed praying this Court to quash the order at Annexure-F dated 25.04.2014 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC by the plaintiffs seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit if necessary after disposal of KLR/Kavalageri/SR-17 pending before Land Tribunal, Dharwad.

¶49

The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application, allowed the application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the defendants.

¶50

The main contention urged before this Court is that the Trial Court ought not to have given permission and ought to have rejected the application. The petitioners have no objection to withdraw the suit but since the

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶52

plaintiffs have sought permission to file a fresh suit after unlimited period, liberty cannot be granted to the plaintiffs

¶53

to file a fresh suit after disposal of tenancy matter. The Trial Court failed to consider this aspect and passed the impugned order and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶54

Per contra, counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that since the dispute is pending before the Land Tribunal, they have sought liberty to approach the Court after the disposal of the same if need arises and hence the petitioners cannot find fault with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶55

Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsels appearing for the respondents and also having considered the factual aspects of the matter, the suit is filed for the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds in respect of the suit property and recovery of the possession. When the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of cancellation of sale deeds in respect of the suit property

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶57

and recovery of the possession and when the matter is also seized before the Land Tribunal considering the claim made for confirming of tenancy right, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that law is also settled that when the matter is seized before the Tribunal, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the same property.

¶58

The relief is also sought for withdrawing of the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit if need arises and when such prayer is sought, the same is objected by the petitioners on the ground that the liberty cannot be given to the plaintiffs. No such prayer is sought with regard to the limitation when the application was filed by the respondents and objection is also that in order to save the limitation as the suit is barred by limitation, a fresh prayer is sought to file a fresh suit. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that if the plaintiffs file a fresh suit, it cannot

¶59

give any limitation to the plaintiffs if this suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Having taken note of the

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶61

said contention also and also the ground urged in the present petition also, the Court cannot give any permission to file a fresh suit after unlimited period.

¶62

respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that it may take time since Land Tribunal is not constituted. When such being the case, if liberty is given to file a fresh suit that will not consider the limitation as contended by the petitioner’s counsel and only the specific ground is also sought that if need arises, they may be permitted to file a fresh suit and giving of liberty will not take away the right of the petitioners and hence I do not find any ground to quash the order and the Trial Court given the reason while giving permission and mainly comes to the conclusion that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of same property when the issue is seized before the Land Tribunal as well as the question of considering the limitation with regard to the apprehension of the

¶63

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12583 WP No. 106784 of 2014

¶64

petitioners also does not arise. Hence, I do not find any

¶65

ground to quash the impugned order.

¶66

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶67

the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶70

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶71

SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Mahadevi W/O. Manik Desai v. Kallavva W/O. Mallangouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevi W/O. Manik Desai v. Kallavva W/O. Mallangouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Sanjay S/O Dhanapal Chougala Vs Col (Retd). Ranjit Sidram @ Appasaheb Banahatti

M/S Sharada Grameena Abhivruddi and Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Smitha W/O Vinayak Jadhav Vs Deputy Commissioner and President

Shri Lagamanna S/O Ningappa Aralimatti Vs the Executive Officer

Vishweshwar N Joshi S/O Narayana Vs Jabeena Banu W/O Late Nadeem

Parvatewwa S/O Mahadev Kadakbhavi Vs Savakka Calling Herself W/O Mahadev Kadakbhavi