IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.856/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN :
MR. NITIN DUBEY S/O SRI UMANATH DUBEY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, # A1003, T6, CEDAR GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024 (BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADV.) AND ... PETITIONER 1. M/S QIKWELL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPNIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT # 165/5, I MAIN KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, J. P. NAGAR II PHASE BENGALURU-560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SHASHANK NAVALURKAR DATTATREYA AGED 29 YEARS 2. M/S PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT # 183, 4TH MAIN KSRTC LAYOUT, J P NAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SHASHANK NAVALURKAR DATTATREYA AGED 29 YEARS ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD:30.11.2018 PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O XIV RULE 5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IN O.S.NO.2079/2017 BY THE LEARNED LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CH 65 VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’ ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Syed Suhail Ali, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Heard.
3. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.III and IV by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) has been rejected.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for petitioner has confined his challenge to the impugned order so far as it pertains to rejection of application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only.
5. Taking into account the order, this court deems it proper not to issue notice to the proposed respondents on the application.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner while inviting the attention of this court to the order dated 30.11.2018 submits that no valid reasons have been assigned by the trial court for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, it is also alleged that in fact, the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC has not been decided by the trial court while passing the impugned order.
7. In view of the aforestated submission and on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that in fact the trial court has not decided the application filed by the petitioner Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and no reasons has been assigned for rejection of the application. The impugned order is cryptic and suffers from non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order inasmuch as it relates rejection of application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to decide the application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Since the order has been passed, the respondents are free to approach this court to recall the order.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE