Disposed¶49

Fish Mart v. Seetharamu K

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025CP/220/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 24(5) CPC; Section 24 CPC general power of transfer and withdrawal; transfer of suit from a Court having no jurisdiction; recall of order dated 01.07.2025; O.S.No.1254/2024 I Additional Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural; O.S.No.4681/2025 City Civil Court Bengaluru CCH-27; return of plaint; illegal dispossession from suit property; Fish Mart v. Seetharamu .K and Bengaluru City Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; CP No. 220 of 2025; Karnataka High Court; C.M. Poonacha J.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief; petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to invoke other permissible remedies and seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit O.S. No.4681/2025. ¶49

Fish Mart Vs Seetharamu K — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No affirmative relief; petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to invoke other permissible remedies and seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit O.S. No.4681/2025.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.07.2025 dismissing the civil petition seeking transfer of O.S.No.1254/2024 under Section 24 CPC should be recalled, in view of Section 24(5) CPC permitting transfer of a suit from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

Under Section 24(5) CPC, it is open to a Court exercising jurisdiction under that sub-section to transfer a suit or proceeding from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 01.07.2025 dismissing the civil petition is recalled.

¶34

Key takeaways

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that reference to Section 24(5) was adverted to during oral submissions is not accepted, the order dated 01.07.2025 having been dictated in open Court without the omission being pointed out at the time of dictation.obiter¶35
No further orders are required in the present proceedings; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to invoke such other remedies as may be permissible under law and to seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit O.S. No.4681/2025.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Petition No.220/2025 (under S.24 CPC) - High Court of Karnataka (C.M. Poonacha J.), order dated 11.07.2025. The Court recalled its own order dated 01.07.2025 by which the petition - seeking transfer of O.S.No.1254/2024 from the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru - had been dismissed on the view that the suit was instituted before a Court without territorial jurisdiction; relying on the plain reading of S.24(5) CPC, which permits transfer "from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it", the dismissal order was recalled. The petitioner's contention that S.24(5) had been adverted to during oral submissions was rejected, the earlier order having been dictated in open Court without the omission being noted. As the Trial Court had in the meantime returned the plaint in O.S.No.1254/2024 and the petitioner had instituted O.S.No.4681/2025 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru (listed 02.07.2025 before CCH-27), the petition was disposed of without further orders, liberty being reserved to the petitioner to pursue other permissible remedies and appropriate reliefs in the pending suit; the petitioner also alleged illegal dispossession from the suit property.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23487 CP No. 220 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CIVIL PETITION NO.220 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

FISH MART NO.60/2, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, TALAGHATTAPURA POST VAJARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560062

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, GANGAHDARA N.H. S/O LATE NARAYANA BILLAVA M: 9964855229 Email: [email protected] …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SATEESH S. KUDTARKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SEETHARAMU .K S/O LATE M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.98, BYARAVA NILAYA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, TALAGHATTAPURA POST, VAJARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560062 M: 9886888777.

¶15

THE BENGALURU CITY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO.2 SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA

¶16

BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI T.M. VIJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOATE FOR R-2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:23487 CP No. 220 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CIVIL PETITION BY TRANSFERRING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.1254/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF MATTER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 dismissed the civil petition inter alia on the ground that the relief sought in the petition was seeking for transfer of a suit that was instituted before the Court, which did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. The said final order was dictated in the Court. However, before the same was signed, Section 24 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure¹ was noticed, which reads as follows:

¶25

“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal .- x x x

¶26

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:23487 CP No. 220 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.”

¶31

( emphasis supplied )

¶32

In view of the plain reading of Section 24 (5) of

¶33

CPC, it is open to a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of CPC to transfer a suit or proceedings under the said sub-section from a Court which has no

¶34

jurisdiction to try the same. In view of the aforementioned, the order dated 01.07.2025 is hereby recalled.

¶35

Although, it is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reference to Section 24 (5) was adverted to during the course of the oral submissions, the same is not liable to be accepted having regard to the fact that the order dated 01.07.2025 was dictated in open Court and non-reference to Section 24(5) of the CPC in the final order dated 01.07.2025 was not pointed out at the time of dictation.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:23487 CP No. 220 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent submits

¶40

that pursuant to the dismissal of the present petition on

¶41

01.07.2025, the Trial Court has returned the plaint in O.S. No.1254/2024 and on the next day, i.e., on 02.07.2025, the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.4681/2025 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the matter was listed before the Court (CCH-27) on the same day.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the institution of the suit in O.S. No.4681/2025, the petitioner has been illegally dispossessed from the suit property without taking any recourse to law.

¶43

Having regard to the subsequent events, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has already instituted another suit in O.S.No.4681/2025 and also keeping in mind the fact that the plaint presented by the petitioner in O.S.No.1254/2024 has already been returned, no further orders are require to be passed in the present proceedings, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke such other remedy/ies as may be permissible under

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:23487 CP No. 220 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

law, as well as seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit, i.e., O.S. No.4681/2025.

¶48

With the above observations, the civil petition

¶49

stands disposed of.

¶50