Allowed

Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka Trust R v. Siloam Zion Gospel Fellowship

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/8144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging order allowing I.A. No. 47. Found res judicata applies based on prior rejection of refund prayer in I.A. No. 45. Quashed impugned order, rejected new application, and directed disposal within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing impugned order; I.A. No. 47 rejected; suit to be disposed within nine months.

Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka Trust R Vs Siloam… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41688 WP No. 8144 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI VIDYAVARTHAKA TRUST (R) NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI 577 301, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI PRASANNANATHA SWAMIJI.

¶7

SRI PRASANNANATHA SWAMIJI, VICE PRESIDENT, SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI VIDYAVARDHAKA TRUST ®, NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI 577 301, SHIVAMAOGGA DISTRICT.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. VENKATESH M S/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MANJUNATHA NILAYA, NTB-443, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SILOAM ZION GOSPEL FELLOWSHIP REGD OFFICE AT MOOLEKATTE, ’DIVYA NILAYA’,HIRIYUR POST, P.O. BOX. 319, BHADRAVATHI 577 301, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:41688 WP No. 8144 of 2024

¶16

J.D. MOSES S/O DEVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PRESIDENT, SILOAM ZION GOSPEL FELLOWSHIP, K C BLOCK, III CROSS, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI TOWN 577 301, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.KARTHIK S TAYUR.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ON IA NO. 47 AND IN OS NO. 33/2004 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-T TO THE WRIT PETITION AND B) DIRECTION REJECTING IA NO. 47 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF PRAYER FOR REFUND OF EARNEST MONEY, IN OS NO. 33/2004 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BHADRAVATHI.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition by the defendants seeks to call in

¶24

question the order dated 22.02.2024 whereby, the respondent-plaintiffs’ application in I.A.No.47 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 read with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been favoured in a pending Specific Performance Suit in O.S.No.33/2004.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41688 WP No. 8144 of 2024

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶27

and having perused the Petition Papers, this petition has to succeed on the short ground that plaintiffs I.A.No.45 filed under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC was allowed partly vide order dated 30.08.2017 and specifically the prayer for leave to seek refund of the earnest money was rejected. Challenge to the same in W.P.No.56505/2017 filed by the respondent-plaintiffs was disposed off has having been withdrawn on 25.10.2018, subsequently although with no objections from the petitioners herein. Once the application was rejected, the order of rejection would operate as res judicata by virtue of decision of the Apex Court in Y.B.PATIL AND OTHERS vs. Y.L.PATIL, AIR 1977 SC 392 wherein it is observed that the principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages of the same litigation, to the extent, that where a court (whether trial court or a higher court) has, at an earlier stage of the suit, decided the matter one way, the parties, cannot be allowed to reagitate the same matter at a subsequent stage of the suit.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41688 WP No. 8144 of 2024

¶29

The vehement submission of learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the Respondent-plaintiffs that the earlier application i.e., I.A.No.45 was filed only under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and that the subsequent application i.e., I.A.No.47 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, res judicata is not attracted, is difficult to countenance. His reliance on the decision in ARJUN SINGH vs. MOHINDRA KUMAR, AIR 1964 SCR 5, page 946, does not come to the rescue of respondents. Merely because a different provision of law is quoted in the subsequent application, the doctrine of res judicata does not stand excluded, more particularly when the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC have been duplicated in the subsequent application too.

¶31

In view of the above, this petition is allowed; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order, plaintiffs’ application in I.A.No.47 filed in O.S.No.33/2004 is hereby rejected. Since the suit is two decade old, learned trial

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41688 WP No. 8144 of 2024

¶33

Judge is requested to try & dispose the same within an outer limit of nine months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶34

However, this order would not preclude the respondent-plaintiffs from making the impugned order passed on I.A.No.45 a ground in the event they suffer an adverse judgment & decree, as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1A of amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶35

Costs made easy.

¶36

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶37

cbc

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka Trust R v. Siloam Zion Gospel Fellowship

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka Trust R v. Siloam Zion Gospel Fellowship

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

Sri.Shailaja Vs Srinivasa

M Lakshmana Vs Dalvoy Anglo Sanskrit School Committee

Mrs. M. Anbammal Vs Mr. M. Ashok Kumar @ Jayaram

Sri Andhanaiah Vs Sri Siddalingaiah

Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri M B Nagaraju

Sri B Nanjundappa Vs Smt Aiysha Khan