Karnataka High Court
Shri V. Girish vs Dr. Prashanth S Urs on 11 July, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION No.30239/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SHRI V. GIRISH
S/O. M VENKATRAMAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO. 34, 2ND CROSS
R.K. LAYOUT,
PADMANABHANAGAR
BSK 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 070. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
DR. PRASHANTH S.URS
S/O LATE M S SOMARAJA URS
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 2/A/8,
EAST END MAIN ROAD,
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR
M/s.ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS., ADVS.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.15 DATED 6.6.2013 IN
O.S.NO.458/2006 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
[SR.DN.] & JMFC, MYSORE AT ANNEXURE-A
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.458/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, is before this Court, praying for quashing the Order dated 06.06.2013 passed on I.A.No.XV in the above said suit, at Annexure 'A'.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has determined to pay duty and penalty in all amounting to Rs.57,92,368/- on the agreement of sale and this Court in Writ Petition No.12688/2012, granted four weeks time to pay the same, but the petitioner could not pay the same. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application I.A.II for extension of time in the writ petition, but did not press. Thereafter, he 3 approached the trial Court by filing I.A.XIV under Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to deposit duty and penalty on the agreement of sale, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the application. He submits that the petitioner/plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit duty and penalty amount of Rs.57,92,368/- on or before 15.07.2013 and the writ petition may be disposed off, accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposes the petition contending that the suit has been posted for Judgment on 16.07.2013 and in view of the decision rendered in 2004(4) KLJ 189 (DB) (RABIYA BI KASSIM.M vs. THE COUNTRY-WIDE CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED, BANGALORE), no interlocutory application can be filed when the suit is reserved for Judgment. He also submits that the petitioner filed I.A.II/12 in Writ Petition No.12688/2012, but withdrew the same on 19.11.2012 and thereafter, he approached the 4 trial Court seeking permission to deposit the amount and the petitioner is protracting the proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner had challenged the Order dated 05.12.2010 made in Writ Petition Nos.12688/2012 and 12960/2012 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the SLP was dismissed on 18.03.2013. There is no good ground to grant any more time to the petitioner to pay duty and penalty on the agreement of sale.
4. There is no dispute about the facts mentioned above.
5. Keeping in view that the suit is filed by the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale and in view of the statement that the defendant has delivered the possession of the subject matter of the sale to the plaintiff as part performance of contract, but the agreement has not been drawn on a requisite stamp paper, marking of the document was objected. The trial Court has determined the duty and penalty of 5 Rs.57,92,368/- payable on the agreement of sale.
6. Keeping in view that huge sum was liable to be paid on the document, I am of the opinion that so as to render substantial justice to the parties, a reasonable time can be granted as last chance.
7. In the result, Petitioner is granted time till 15.07.2013 to pay duty and penalty of Rs.57,92,368/- on the agreement of sale as determined by the trial Court. It is made clear that no more extension of time will be granted. If the petitioner/plaintiff fails to deposit duty and penalty on or before 15.07.2013, the trial Court shall proceed to dispose off the suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off.
Registry is directed to issue operative portion of the Order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*