Karnataka High Court
M/S Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf vs M/S Indian Wood And Industries on 21 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42064
WP No. 26375 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 26375 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. HAJEE EBRAHIM SAIT WAKF
A PRIVATE WAKF
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.47
2ND FLOOR, GREAMS ROAD
THOUSAND LIGHTS
CHENNAI - 600 006.
ALSO AT
EBRAHIM'S RESIDENCY - 98
RESIDENCY ROAD, SANTALA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560025
REPRESENTED BY IT MUTHAVALLI
MR. M. FUAAD MUSVEE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TAHURA ANZAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. M/S. INDIAN WOOD AND INDUSTRIES
by
MARKONAHALLI REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
RAMU PRIYA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
Location: HIGH WOOD HOUSE NO. 526
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, 5TH BLOCK
RANKA APARTMENTS,
LALBAGH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
KURIAN THOMAS
2. MR. DIVAKAR RAO
SON OF S N RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF AIRLINES HOTEL
NO.4, MADRAS BANK ROAD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42064
WP No. 26375 of 2024
CIVIL STATION
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR.S. ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
V/O/DATED 21.10.2024 S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTIT UTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 17.09.2024 ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1281/2016 PASSED BY
THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
CCCH-14 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.1281/2016 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has filed this petition challenging an order dated 17.09.2024 passed by XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which, I.A.No.3 filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure was rejected.
2. The suit in O.S.No.1281/2016 was filed for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for damages of Rs.32,50,000/- and for a direction to the defendants to continue to pay the damages at Rs.2,50,000/- per month during the pendency of the suit.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024
3. The plaintiff claimed that he as the Mutawalli of a private wakf the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant No.2 had entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 19.08.1995, in terms of which, the plaintiff and Mr. K.Thomas had to enter into an agreement evidencing new terms and conditions to continue the lease of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff obtained permission from the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in Misc.No.11/1996 to lease the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1 on fresh terms and conditions. The said petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 11.10.1996. After obtaining permission from the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru as stated above, an agreement of lease was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 25.03.1998 incorporating certain new terms and conditions. The defendant No.2 was a sub-lessee under the defendant No.1. The plaintiff claimed that he had agreed to lease the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1 for 60 years and the defendant No.1 had agreed to give up an area of 30,000 sq.ft. to the plaintiff for development. The plaintiff claimed that he took possession of 30,000 sq.ft. and developed the property and constructed a commercial building named 'Prestige -4- NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024 Emerald'. The agreement to lease dated 25.03.1998 was subsequently extended in terms of a supplementary agreement dated 17.10.1998 followed by another agreement dated 30.03.1999. Pursuant to the said agreements, a document styled as lease deed was entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 01.07.1999 which contained fresh terms and conditions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 failed to comply with certain terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement of lease entered into between them and therefore, the plaintiff was advised to take action against the defendant No.1 for violation. The plaintiff claimed that since the defendant No.1 did not comply with the terms and conditions, the tenancy was terminated on 24.11.2014, following which a suit was filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.9403/2014 for enforcement of the terms contained in the agreement to lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999. The plaintiff therefore sought for ejectment of the defendants and to pay damages as stated above.
4. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who admitted the transactions between it and the plaintiff. It however contended inter-alia that the plaintiff failed to perform -5- NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024 its part of the obligation under the lease agreements referred above and therefore the defendant No.1 was compelled to file suit for specific performance of the terms of the lease in O.S.No.9403/2014.
5. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial and the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to incorporate certain additional pleadings which were unnecessary in the suit for ejectment. This application was contested by the defendants on the ground that the application was designed to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the amendment sought for was not necessary to decide the suit. It also held that allowing the application would enlarge scope of the suit though no relief was sought for in the plaint.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendant No.1 had brought about various unconscionable -6- NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024 agreements and had undermined the right, title and interest of the Wakf in the suit property and therefore, the same had to be brought on record to establish the conduct of defendant No.1. He therefore contends that amendment sought for was necessary and the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting it.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that the application was filed only to protract the proceedings before the Court. He contends that the additional pleadings sought to be brought on record are not necessary. He contends that the suit for specific performance is taken up on day to day basis, in view of an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11201/2016. He therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be not disturbed.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendant No.1.
10. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 had occupied the suit property as a tenant under the lease agreement. The plaintiff alleged -7- NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024 that the defendant No.1 had failed to perform its part of the contract which compelled the plaintiff to terminate the lease and sue for ejectment. The defendants though admitted the execution of the lease agreement has contended that the plaintiff has not performed its part of the contract which perforce it to file O.S.No.9403/2014 for specific performance.
11. In the light of the above contentions, a perusal of the application filed for amendment of the plaint discloses that they were not even remotely necessary for considering the suit for ejectment. The plaintiff accused the defendant No.1 of indulging in certain acts such as entering into unconscionable memorandum of understanding with a third party/defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property etc., thereby jeopardising the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. These pleadings may be relevant in O.S. No.9403/2014 filed by defendant No.1 for specific performance. The plaintiff cannot enlarge the scope of the suit by trying to bring a record events that are not relevant in the suit for ejectment, having regard to its limited scope.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:42064 WP No. 26375 of 2024
12. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff warranting interference in this writ petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
13. Since the suit in O.S.No.9403/2014 filed by the defendant No.1 for specific performance which is pending consideration before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and the suit from which the present writ petition arise namely O.S.No.1281/2016 are pending before the same Court, it is appropriate to direct the Court to take up both the suits together, record separate evidence, and dispose off both the suits together by a separate judgments. The plaintiff in O.S.No.9403/2014 shall adduce evidence before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing without fail.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34