Karnataka High Court
M/S Whitefield Shelters Pvt Ltd vs Sri N Nagaraja on 30 January, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.753/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S WHITEFIELD SHELTERS PVT LTD
PLOT NO.775/A1,
ROAD NO.45, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500033
REP. BY PROMOTERS / DIRECTORS
1. SRI K., RAJAA REDDY
2. SRI R. SRINIVAS REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V VISHWANATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI N NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O NAGAPPA
R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA
NO.9, GARUDACHARPALYA
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560048.
2. SMT M.SHANTHAKUMAR @ SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O N.NAGARAJA
R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA
NO.9, GARUDACHARPALYA
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560048.
3. SRI G.M.SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE,
KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI
- 2 -
BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560048
REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY
SRI N.NAGARAJA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV., FOR
M/S. KESVY & CO., FOR R-1
SRI AMIT DESPHANDE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.11.12 PASSED
THE FTC IV BRD, BANGALORE IN OS 2121/07 DIRECT
THE PETITIONER TO PAY COURT FEE OF RS. 40,57,125/-
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO ACCEPT THE COURT FEE ALREADY PAID BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC 47 OF KCF AND SV ACT
VIDE ANNX-G BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for parties.
2. The plaintiff is aggrieved by determination of Court fee by the trial Court. The plaintiff has sought for following reliefs:
a) For specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.09.2004 directing the defendants to co-operate with the plaintiff in completing the proposed project as per
- 3 -
terms and conditions agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendants under the MOU.
b) restrain the defendants either from alienating the schedule property or from creating any encumbrance, mortgage, lease, joint development agreement with third parties concerning suit schedule properties either by him or by his children, GPA holders, agents, supporters, henchmen or any person or persons claiming any right under or through them, by granting permanent injunction.
c) Restrain the defendants from alter the nature of the suit schedule property either by him or by his children, GPA holders, agents, supporters, henchmen or any person or persons claiming any right under or through them, by granting permanent injunction.
d) Direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
- 4 -
3. In 2011(8) SCC 249 (in the case of
Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi), 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 the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on 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
- 5 -
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.
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 caution in granting exparte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily, short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed. F. Litigants who obtained exparte 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."
- 6 -
4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.9.2004, said to have been executed by defendants for a direction to defendant to co-operate with plaintiff in completing the proposed project as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by plaintiff and defendants made under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.9.2004.
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that there are as many as 16 Clauses in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.9.2004.
6. The Clauses sought to be enforced by plaintiff should have been clarified in the suit. The relief sought for by plaintiff is omnibus. The learned trial Judge should have considered relief sought for in suit while determining Court fee in terms of impugned order.
7. Therefore, I pass the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned trial Judge shall re-determine the Court fee payable by plaintiff, taking into consideration
- 7 -
the relief sought for in the suit and also maintainability of suit in the present form. The learned trial Judge shall also take into consideration the order made in this Court in W.P.Nos.39002-39004/2011 dated 5.1.2012.
Sd/-
JUDGE nas.