Karnataka High Court
Smt. B S Vidya vs Smt.Kanthamma on 4 February, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
W.P.No.41587/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B S VIDYA, 48 YEARS
W/O RAMESH JOIS
R/O NO.158, 5TH FLOOR
SURYAMUKHI GARDEN APARTMENTS
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS K SREEDHAR & SRINIVAS B S, ADVS.)
AND :
1. SMT.KANTHAMMA, 57 YEARS
D/O P K NARAYANA REDDY
2. SMT P N KAMALAMMA, 53 YEARS
D/O P K NARAYANA REDDY
3. SMT CHANDRIKA, 48 YEARS
D/O P K NARAYANA REDDY
ALL ARE R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOFER AKBAR, ADV. FOR SRI M V NAVEEN REDDY,
ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-M & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The short point for consideration is:-
"Whether the learned trial Judge should have rejected the plaint as sought for by defendant No.26?"
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.26 has relied on a Full Bench Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court, reported in AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 316 (in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. The State Bank of India and Others), wherein it is held:-
"11. As a result of the above discussion, I hold that the plea raised by the petitioner is untenable and the contrary view is neither sound nor just and is not warranted by the language of the statute. Consequently, my answer to the question posed is that the 3 provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, would be attracted only in a case where by reason of the plea that a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the plaintiff is to be wholly non-suited, but this rule would have no applicability to cases where a plaint discloses & cause of action in respect of the part of the claim against some of the defendants, as in that event the names of the defendants against whom there is no cause of action or the suit is barred by law, have to be struck off and the suit has to proceed against the remaining defendants. The case would now go back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits."
4. In my considered opinion, in the aforestated decision, it is not stated that there can be partial rejection of plaint. On the other hand, it is held that where a plaint discloses & cause of action in respect of the part of the claim against some of the defendants, as in that event the names of the defendants against whom there is no cause of action or the suit is barred by law, have to be struck off and the suit has 4 to proceed against the remaining defendants. Therefore, petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to provisions under Order VI Rule 16 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that after plaint was presented, the learned trial Judge should not have issued summons to all the defendants, without verifying averments of plaint, relief sought for in the suit and court fee paid by plaintiffs.
6. In a decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 in the case of (Ramrameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others), the Supreme Court has held:-
"52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:
A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on 5 documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.6
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.
E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed.
F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.7
I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed."
7. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. However, with a direction to trial court to consider pleadings before proceeding further. The petitioner is at liberty to make 8 necessary applications for striking out pleadings and striking out unnecessary parties. If such application is made, the learned trial Judge shall consider the same with reference to plaint and written statement filed by defendant No.26. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN