Karnataka High Court
Dr Ramesh Uipendra Baliga vs Shree Veerbhadreshwar Temple on 17 July, 2008
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
m Ti-iE.HIC3H comm? or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT oHARwA_ay--- . g %
DATED THIS THE 1??" DAY OF :g:.~g',...V2oi;:iz3 i T 1 V
BEFORE =
THE HON'BLE MR. ausncs A.s,\iEi~:uG¢>9ALA'*<3c>§v:>A...T
Banyan:
Drfiamesh Upendra"Bai~iga%.V " ii
Age: 72, QcC:««[..Doct0_r, .;
Shree Vee.ibhadreshya{ai* Terrspie, ,
Old Hutili, Hu§;ai'i".i~_ .
Petitioner
(fiayisri 'iii;-{5._¥'ééla§iiad.i for Dish Mxulkarni, Adv.,)
' i§h"Téé4Vi\2'aé§~rbhadreshwar Temple,
Hindi;-« Charitable Trust, Kasaba Pet,
X ozd i+Ts.asiI:, Hubii.
AA 2. imihadevappa Parappa Moarshilii
V' * Veerappa Veerabhadragapa Kirmai
Respondents 2 and 3 are de§eted as per Court
Order dated 13.2.2008.
4. Rudrappa Uiavappa Akki, Age: 80 years, Occ: Business, R/at Hubli.
5. Chandrashekarappa Basalingappa Matti,__*l A Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/at Hirepet, Old Hubii, Hubli. I '
6. Rajshekarappa Gurusideziappaéiinléi, Age: 65 years, Occ: Busmess, ' R/at Indipump, Old HubIi',:».,H:ubIi.
7. Chandrashekaragitxa, Fa_i{irai)fia §;iu.rkacf|i',vV"A Age: 65 years, occ: ,Bu's_¥riges.s,""--:,,": _ R/at Ganhi ?v!arket,_HI.:_b!i"g f
8. Shivalin'g'ap;§'a Gi:rupa§iapna"iSi«agi_aiihana, Age:__.6r:'vye'ars., O,<_:c-_._: 1-3.usim:éss, . R/at'J_avaii_,.Sai', H4I,.'itii.iVi. :
9. Manamaaurummpapa Hublikar, Age: 65 years, 'O.c'<:--:,_ Business, _ R/at i€asaba'g_3et~,._ Uid Hubli, Hubli.
--'::1}"9.:3.iji»<appa 'C§u--rap'pa Lakkundi, age: 65 years, Occ: Business.
_ _ "RIG .Akkasa|igar Oni, Old Hubli, "1 1.':iéera"nna Nagappa Hallikeri, ~~ age: 65 years, Occ: Business, as flat Kille, Old I-iubli, Hubli.
"Respondents (By Sri G.R.Andan¥math for R5 to 7 and 9 to 11) This writ petitier: is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutian of India praying to quash the erder Annexure-G passed by the Principal Civil Judge (.'ir.9n.)., i-iubii in O.A.No.414/2004 on LA. 9403.5 and so and void. 5 ».
This petition coming on for preiimv_i_niaVvryA.t.:i*searing. "B" group, the Court madeti1e:feii--o.win'g:
oketxfht ith_ L Defendant in o.s.414.<.g§.ioo4, pt-:n__di~ng'i~o'n"*:.tVi1'e~iifi'|;e of the Principal Civii Judgte_(Jr.E;n~.§V..','iL_;HuapI_i, is 'thamtitioner. The said suit has been"'iii.ed* .e§'-.V:3:he'Vs'vVifesp<>:1dents against the petitioner" Pg rrea tent and possession.
In the .suit,.__the17;!efen_eia..nt,ibetitioner had fiied I.As.5 and 6 tof raise"itviiidgiifioruaéi"-«issues and to hear the same as jL:tisdictienaiipteiie1'i.n'a:ri issues. Said appiicatiens having lpeen op'po.s_ed.7'by."the:plaintiffs, the trial Ceurt has passed omer date 3.3.2907 rejecting I.As.5 and 5.
the said order, the defendant,/petitioner has i *---..__i'ileg_i~ this writ petition.
a 2. I have heard the learned counsei appearing on " hotim sides and perused the record.
3. M.G.Ma!awadi, learned counsei for the petitioner contended that, in View of the amegied written statement, 4 additionai issues as proposed by the defendant, arise for consideration. He further contended that, in no~tTr.aining the proposed additionai issues and in not as preliminary issues, the tria_i...Court _--nVas"r_o.rnmvi_ttVedV_ a_ material error and iiiegaiity andjhrence»._interfer:e'nr¢e.i.jis caiied for. Learned counseitontendved tn_at',q'tiiTne«--vei4it3 is maintainabie and the triai___Conrtr._V_has"nofiuriediction to entertain the suit.
pre;r5".Coiit.ra,'*Sr*i.V'G'.R;i9inv<§animath, learned counsei for the the impugned order passed by the £ria_i C:otirt__. V £§fte'rAA'i:ea.r.ing the learned counsei and on perusing ' ;.Vt'he_ re€;ords}'..in my view, the writ petition is devoid of *merit.' V' A z Tne material facts necessary for consideration and " tirispoisal of this writ petition are:
The piaintiffs have instituted the suit against the 'idefendant, who is acimittediy a Renant in the plaint \/ scheéuie property, for the reiief of decree of rjeeofareiry of arrears of rent of Rs.8,000/-, recovery mesne profits and other consermential.'i;elvi'etSjv.» jti_Vra'ig relationship between the parties, i;[e:.;"Vlan'di_orjd" anggehant is not in dispute. The su_vit~-...has by defendant ey filing ;_virritten,..state'ment..' "AfterJ'the written statement was flied',1i:h.e7.;lefen£iali_rt:V"fiied an application seeking perrr:i'ssion:i'bf":art1end the written staternent,:"»vvlii§ii:ci; wassalioweéiv lancillllthe amendment has been has framed the issues an 8.11.A21Q_O'-1, was at the stage of cross-
e)g:aminati'onv_ofV'PW:-1,A.i.As.5 and 6 have been filed by the
- _ Vdefeiidant,A_ an application fiied under Order 14 Ci>C, to recast or frame additionai issues it Whether the plaintiffs prove that there is no conflict of interest among the trustees and their exists representative nature and interest of the trust as ciaimed?
(it) Whether this Horfbie Co\urt has jurisdiction is i/ mesne profits, on the prernése that there'...§\'e;:s..,_jurai relationship of tandiord and tenant between_.th'e it is true that the 15* pieinttff is a trust and 'the: piVa§ntiffs""'~-_ are the trustees. Taking tnto consi-eeratison-th'e'nr§t.uAre;and'"* scope of the suit, the proposed arise for conséderation. the petitioner is not in a position toziipotinif §..5'}»to"how theflcourt has no jurisdiction and on suit is not maEntainoErie.'}>E§:en"otherwise, vt'he"is'sues which have been frarned'_Ab'y5j'..--17hV§V€=,tri'Ei,i""«t;o:iri: on 3.11.2004 are sufficient the matter in controversy between enotigh to the-V part§ues~-.aAno.'to otspose of the suit. Ruie Order 14 CPC provida that the Court issues from "ail or any of the foiiowéng "materia§is;A such as, aiiegations made on oath by the .. Vi parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made the oieaders of such parties, aiiegations made in the pieadinge or any answers to interrogatories deiivered in the suit and the contents of documents produced by either party. Ruie 5 of Order 14 CPC enabim the Court..b_t'ovv'strike out any issues at any time before Considering the rnateriai aver_r_neh_t's made"ihjvth'e p'iaiht_V,"thie"'~ written statement and the n'etuit'ei "
there is no need' to amevhd. an'd*-oir ofthe issues framed by the which are comprehensive ehoti::gi1_ for suit. The proposed additional issees for consideration.
Consid_eri=hg issi.-eds suit on 8.11.2004, aii the to be tried and decided together.
No jurisdictioha'i.:issti'e#é'iaihich is required to be decided as a '4.pr'ei.i.minary.issue," has arisen for consideration of the triai "'i_'i2e triai Court has not comreitted any materiai "-'.__irreet;~!,ar-ityi"or iiiegaiity in rejecting I.As.5 and 6. Hence no ""----interference is caiied for in the writ jurisdiction of this A. , Cofi*ri:.
10. It is apparent from the record that, the petitioner/defendant, in order to proiong the iitigetiori, has fiied I.As.S and 6. There are no bones fides of whatsoever nature in filing the said appiicationm Though cost shouici Q/r be levied for deiaying the disposal of the sVi;i't;"E._Vdo not intend to imeese any cost.
11. Considering the natege ef.~ti:'e«:'ijs1ii't~,i: vthieh been flied in the year 2004 and e-iisdf'the._ste"ge"oi?-st_he::.mit,"i.. I deem it proper to direci5_th.e triei-._CouVrt isexpeeiie thetriai and to dispose of the the previsions made in the i(a_r%iataika;tj_»' i_'C'e.seA:"«F}ow Management in Subordinate. Courts}skates,':e20'i§'S.vA:"Vi,n'erder to enabte the triei'*C:§i.j;tt;'"t;e« d§'s'pose""cfV--v'the suit expeditiousiy, it is otdered' shaii compiete their side ef evidei:--cevvyt{iVth_irifle' 'eeried of two months from today. The jfidefendantii"she.II..«viead and compiete his side of evidence period of two menths from the date the piaintiffs ."'~i'c¥osesj';their side of evidence and the triai Court is directed it tosdisvgfiose of the suit within a eeriod of two months from it date the trial ef the suit is compieted by the parties. H The petitioner is directed to produce a copy ef this order on the record of the triai Ceurt withinfia period of 15 days 18 from today, to enable the triai Court to d i rectian.
For the forming reasons, 2 devoid of merit and hence is