Karnataka High Court
M/S Madhu Fast Food vs M/S Geetha Shishu Shikshana Sangha on 6 November, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.6456 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S MADHU FAST FOOD,
REPRSENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI RAGHAVENDRA BHAT,
S/O LATE RAMADAS BHAT,
NO 11, INDIRA NILAYA, THEOBALD ROAD,
MYSURU - 570010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S GEETHA SHISHU SHIKSHANA SANGHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HONBLE SECRETARY,
VANAJA B PANDIT,
GEETHA SHISHU SHIKSHANA SANGHA,
SIDDARTHANAGAR,
MYSURU - 570011.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 IN I.A.NO.11 IN
O.S.NO.262/2017 UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.11, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL 1ST
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-E
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner being the defendant in an ejectment suit in O.S.No.262/2017, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against the order dated 27.2.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby its application in I.A.No.11 filed u/o XIV Rule 5 of CPC, 1908, having been rejected, the learned Principal 1st Civil Judge has refused to frame additional issues as sought for.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the complaints relating to framing, non-framing, modification & deletion of issues in a suit proceeding of the kind ordinarily are not examined by the Writ Court in a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested in it u/a 227, the arguable errors therein, notwithstanding; no extraordinary circumstances are pointed out for deviating from this settled position.
3. The above apart, there is another reason for non- interference namely the petitioner has a deferred remedy in 3 the sense it can make the impugned order one of the grounds for assailing the judgment & decree if rendered adverse to interests; in a similar case in W.P.No.23333/2019 (GM-CPC) between N.Gangamma and Another Vs. Vibha Harish and Another, decided on 27.6.2019, at para 4 of the decision, it is observed as under:
"4. The grievance of a party to the suit as to the framing, non-framing, recasting or deletion of issues, can be the subject matter of consideration by the Appellate Court, if and when such a litigant suffers an adverse judgment & decree at the hands of the trial Court, as provided under section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908. Ordinarily, such orders are not scrutinized by the writ court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, of course subject to all just exceptions into which the case of the petitioner does not fit. This is the consistent view of this Court in more or less similar matters."
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc