Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Mallappa Mahadev Katamble on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564
CRP No. 100069 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100069 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY CORPORATION BELAGAVI,
NEAR KUMAR GANDHARVA RANGAMANDHIR,
SP OFFICE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA MAHADEV KATAMBLE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1A. SIDDARAJ MALLAPPA KATAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:
1B. KAMLESH MALLAPPA KATAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:
1C. LAXMAN MALLAPPA KATAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC:
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH 1D. MAHADEVI MALLAPPA KATAMBLE,
VN COURT OF
BADIGER
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC:
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.20
10:34:54 +0530
RESPONDENT NO.1A TO 1D ARE
RESIDENTS OF AT POST: MARUTI GALLI,
MUTYANATTI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CITY CORPORATION BELAGAVI, NORTH REGION,
NEAR KUMAR GANDHARVA RANGAMANDHIR,
SP OFFICE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
3. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
ACCOUNTS SECTION,
CITY CORPORATION BELAGAVI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564
CRP No. 100069 of 2019
NEAR KUMAR GANDHARVA RANGAMANDHIR,
SP OFFICE RAOD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 (A-D);
R2 AND R3-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED IN MISC. NO.177/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, ALLOWING
THE APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER VII R 1 AND 2 OF KMC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the orders passed in Miscellaneous No.177/2018, dated 2.11.2018, by I Addl. District Judge, Belagavi, the petitioner/defendant/Corporation is before this Court.
2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed OS No.891/ 2014 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.3,13,592/-. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015 aggrieved there by Corporation has filed RA No.1/2016 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi. The Appellate Court by order dated 23.07.2015 has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and directed the plaintiff -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564 CRP No. 100069 of 2019 to return the plaint to be present it before the competent Court as he has filed the suit on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi but as per Section 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the suit lies before the District Court. Thereafter plaintiff has filed Miscellaneous No.177/2018. In that case, he has filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By order impugned, the trial Court has allowed the same. While allowing the same, the trial Court has observed that applicant has filed this application with delay of about 12 years from the date of instituting the original suit before wrong forum and further issued notice to Corporation on 6.12.2013. The same makes it clear that applicant himself delayed recovery of amount pending from Corporation for the work done by him for a period which is 12 years. Accordingly, for the delay, the applicant is not entitled for any interest on balance amount. The Court observed that notice was issued on 6.12.2013 and notice was received by Corporation on 7/12/2013. From that day, till the date of payment of balance amount of Rs.3,13,952/-, the applicant was entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum and accordingly allowed -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564 CRP No. 100069 of 2019 the petition. Aggrieved thereby, Corporation is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation submits that suit is not maintainable. He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff has granted permission for construction of community hall under tender notification by the Belagavi City Corporation. As per the six work orders dated 15.11.1999 for total amount of Rs.5,42,592/- had completed the work within 1 ½ years from the date of the said order. But, he received total amount of Rs.2,29,000/- from Corporation as per the work order. Hence, in view of completion of work in the beginning of the year 2001, Corporation is liable to pay Rs.3,13,592/-. It is the case of petitioner/Corporation that when according to respondent/plaintiff, he had received an amount of Rs.2,29,000/- from the Corporation in the year 2001, till the filing of O.S.No.891/2014, he has kept quite. According to the Corporation, suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation. He further submits that the trial Court without considering any of these issues with regard to entitlement of plaintiff for recovery of an amount that were due, allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564 CRP No. 100069 of 2019 any basis. He also submits that the trial Court ought not to have condoned delay right from the year 2001 to 2014. Even assuming that right from 2014 to 2018 he was pursuing remedy before wrong forum, the order impugned is contrary to settled law and is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that there is no dispute about the fact that he has been granted work order and he has completed work and part of the amount is not paid to them. Respondent was having some personal difficulties and his wife was suffering from health issues in view of the same, he could not file necessary application and in the year 2014, he had filed the suit before the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi. He further submits that the same was decreed and when the matter was carried in appeal, the Appellate Court had directed to return plaint to be filed before the Competent Court and as he is pursuing before wrong forum, the delay occurred therein was considered by the trial Court and by considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly passed the order. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564 CRP No. 100069 of 2019
5. Having heard learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are that the respondent/plaintiff is contractor and Corporation by way of tender has allotted work order to him and certain amounts were paid in the year 2001 and till 2013, what has transpired between the year 2001 and 2013, nothing has been stated. It is stated that for the first time, in the year 2013 notice was issued. Thereafter, he has filed a suit before wrong forum, which was decreed and the Appellate Court has held that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction and accordingly directed to return the plaint and in the said order, the Appellate Court has not discussed about limitation and has only directed to return the plaint. Once he presented it before the appropriate forum the Court has to look at whether the claim is within limitation and all other relevant aspects have to be considered. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has failed to consider what has happened between 2001- 2013 and the trial Court has not considered the inordinate delay and without discussing about the delay, the trial Court had condoned delay. When law of limitation prescribes particular period for doing a particular act, when any -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16564 CRP No. 100069 of 2019 application is filed seeking condonation of delay, the trial Court has to consider the same in accordance with law. The delay of 12 years is an inordinate delay. In cases of inordinate delay, each and every days delay has to be explained. But in this case, there is no whisper about what has transpired between the years 2001 to 2013. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court had condoned delay without any reasonable cause, accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The order dated 2.11.2018, passed in Miscellaneous No.177/2018, by I Addl. District Judge, Belagavi is set aside.
ii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
iii. All I.As. in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI VB/CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1