Karnataka High Court
M/S Saravana Enterprises vs The K.G.F. Town Co-Operative Society on 28 March, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
WP No. 16740 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 16740 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SARAVANA ENTERPRISES
STATION ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.,
K.G.F. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
B.A.RAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
2. A RAJESHWARI
W/O LATE B ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
3. B A RAMANI
S/O LATE B ARMUGAM
Digitally AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
signed by
NARASIMHA
MURTHY 4. B A MURALI
VANAMALA S/O LATE B ARMUGAM
Location: AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 4 ARE
KARNATAKA R/AT STATION ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F - 563 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 16740 of 2016
AND:
THE K.G.F. TOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
OPPOSITE SUB TREASURY
STATION ROAD, ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F. - 563 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR AND
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV
RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.136 OF 2006 BY THE COURT OF THE PRL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC K.G.F ON I.A. NO.XI AT ANNEXURE-E
AND ALLOW IA NO.XI FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the defendants in O.S.No.136/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, K.G.F (for short, 'the civil Court'). The -3- WP No. 16740 of 2016 petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 17.03.2016, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioners' application (I.A.No.XI) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC'). Sri. Cyril Prasad Pais, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.Vivek, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., the learned counsel on record for the respondent, are heard for final disposal of the writ petition.
2. The petitioners' application is for amendment of their written statement to include pleadings as regards the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Kolar, handing over the charge of the respondent - plaintiff's society to its President on 14.08.2009 and the execution and registration of the Lease Deed dated 07.04.2010 in favour of the first petitioner for a further period of 29 years 11 months. -4- WP No. 16740 of 2016
3. The respondent, represented by its Liquidator and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kolar has commenced this suit in O.S.No.136/2006 for ejectment. The petitioners have filed their written statement contending that the lease of the subject premise in favour of the first petitioner under the registered Lease Deed dated 19.04.1989 would subsist until 14.08.2009 and they were not in arrears of rent especially with the respondent receiving certain amounts towards deposits.
4. The present application is filed to bring on record that during the subsistence of the suit, and with the charge of the plaintiff's society being handed over to its President, a fresh Lease Deed is executed and registered increasing the monthly rent and continuing the lease for a further period of 29 years 11 months from the date of fresh Lease Deed. The civil Court has rejected this application opining -5- WP No. 16740 of 2016 that the amendment would not be necessary and the civil Court's order reads as under:
"Here by way of proposed amendment, the defendants wants to insert the pleadings with respect to transaction of the management of plaintiff's co-operative society. This court is deciding a question as to whether there is valid termination of tenancy as on the date of filing of the suit and with respect to arrears of rent as on the day of filing of the suit. Any subsequent event after institution of suit is not necessary for adjudication of this dispute. At the most the defendant can bring the same in evidence in support of already pleaded facts. This aspect can be proved even without there being a pleading as management of plaintiff's society and the liquidator who has filed the present suit on behalf of plaintiff's society are two different individuals. If really the defendants had entered into any transaction with the liquidator of plaintiff's society who has filed this suit and said aspect might have been relevant. Even otherwise the defendants can establish their contention in support of already pleaded facts. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not at all relevant."-6- WP No. 16740 of 2016
5. The respondent's suit is for ejectment and the request for decree for ejectment will have to be necessarily considered in the light of the subsequent events. If it could be established, the civil Court, contrary to what is observed in the impugned order, cannot decide on the merits of the suit ignoring the registered Lease Deed. This salient has been overlooked and therefore, this Court must interfere but with the observation that the respondent will be at liberty to file its rejoinder, if any. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed, and the civil Court's impugned order dated 17.03.2016 in O.S.No.136/2006 is quashed. The petitioners are permitted to carry out amendment and file amended written statement before the civil Court within fifteen [15] days from the date of first hearing before the civil Court after this Court's order, and the respondent is also -7- WP No. 16740 of 2016 reserved liberty to file rejoinder within thirty [30] days from such date before the civil Court.
SD/-
JUDGE RB