IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.Nos.10481/2019 & 10680/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. B.S.Govindaraj Son of late B.G.Srinivasa Murthy, Aged about 63 years, Senior Citizen 2. B.S.Lakshmi Narayan Son of late B.G.Srinivasa Murthy, Aged about 59 years, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are R/a # 57/A, 15th Main Road, 15th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, Sarakki Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560 078 …Petitioners (By Sri.J.S.Pradeep for Sri.Subba Shastry.N, Advocate) AND:
1. Sharath A.R S/o. Late A.N.Rangaswamy, Aged about 35 years, # 84, Hospital Road, 1st Floor, Balepet Cross, Bengaluru – 560 053 2. R.Manjunath Son of Sri.B.Ramaiah, Aged about 47 years, # 84, Hospital Road, 2nd floor, Balepet Cross, Bengaluru – 560 053 …Respondents (By Sri.Basavaraj.S.Sappannavar, Advocate for R1; Sri.Preetham.P.S, Advocate for R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order found at Annexure-H to this writ petition passed on 31.01.2019 in O.S.No.2863/2017 on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2) at Bengaluru by setting aside the same by allowing this writ petition and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners-plaintiffs filed these writ petitions against the order dated 31.01.2019 made in O.S.No.2863/2017 on the file of I Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in posting I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to be heard along with merits of the suit.
2. The plaintiffs filed suit for ejectment and also for damages contending that they are the owners of the property in question and defendant No.1 is the tenant. Therefore, the eviction petition came to be filed on the ground of unauthorised occupation of the property in question.
3. The first defendant filed the written statement admitting the relationship and denying damages, sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to decree the suit based on the admissions by the first defendant in his pleadings reiterating the averments made in the written statement. They also filed another application under Section 151 of CPC seeking to direct the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- per month to the plaintiffs payable from the calendar month of March, 2017 as damages reiterating the averments made in the plaint. The said applications were resisted by the first defendant by filing the objections. The trial Court after hearing the parties on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 posted for orders on 26.09.2018. Again, it was posted for orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 on 17.11.2018 and 15.12.2018. On 31.01.2019, a new Presiding Officer has ordered that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to be heard along with main merits of the suit. Hence, these writ petitions were filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Sri J.S.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the learned trial Judge heard the application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, he ought to proceed and to pass the orders on the said application instead of ordering that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to be heard along with merits of the suit, which is impermissible. He would further contended that the very object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to obtain speedy judgment at any stage of proceedings based on admission, if ultimately plaintiffs succeed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and IA.No.2 filed under Section 151 of CPC, there is no question of proceeding further. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have pass order on the said I.A.Nos.1 and 2 instead of posting them to be heard on merits.
7. Per contra, Sri Basavaraj.S.Sappannavar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has not disputed the fact that the trial Court heard the arguments on both the sides on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs and posted the same for orders on three occasions. The then Presiding Officer came to be transferred and the new Presiding Officer by its impugned order dated 31.01.2019 has ordered that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to be heard along with merits. He further contended if the new Presiding Officer wants to proceed, he has to give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on I.A.Nos.1 and 2.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that during the pendency of the suit for ejectment and damages filed by the owners- petitioners, an application came to be filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to decree the suit based on admissions made by the first defendant and also another application under Section 151 of CPC to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- per month to the plaintiffs payable from the calendar month of March, 2017 as damages. It is also not in dispute that the Presiding Officer heard the learned counsel for both the parties on IA.Nos.1 and 2 and posted the same for orders on three occasions. Merely on changing of the Presiding Officer, the new Presiding officer cannot order that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to be heard along with merits, when, arguments have already been heard. As the new Presiding Officer has not heard the arguments made on IA.Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court to hear the arguments on both sides on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs afresh and then proceed in accordance with law.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration of the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 afresh and to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
As the trial Court has already been directed to hear the parties on IA.Nos.1 and 2 afresh and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, prayer No.2 as sought for is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS