IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.31386/2018 c/w W.P.No.31387/2018, W.P.No.31388/2018 AND W.P.No.31389/2018 (GM – CPC) IN W.P.No.31386/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RAJLAXMI N. PALAGULLA W/O NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT "HAJIRA ENCLAVE"
SAPTHAGIRI P.G. FOR LADIES, NO.1 & 2, 81/2, 1ST CROSS, CHANUKYA LAYOUT, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, NAGAVARA, BENGALURU-560045.
2. BSR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY ITS PROPRIETOR Mr. B.SUBBA REDDY, S/O B.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.100/37/5, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, NEAR SILK BOARD, BEHIND MAHENDRA SHOWROOM, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.] AND:
1. M.HAROONAL RASHEED S/O LATE MAZHARUL HAKH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.26/2, 1ST CROSS, MARAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560046.
2. T.S.ANIL KUMAR S/O T.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.#2, 9TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.
3. R.MANJUNATHA S/O H.K.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 4TH STAGE, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE 570022.
4. Dr. D.SRINIDHI S/O V.R.DWARAKANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1309, RAJEEVA RANJUTHA, 15TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENTS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-18) TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER ON O.S.No.1457/2018 ON I.A.NO.2 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER 39 RULE 3A OF CPC, TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD.
IN W.P.No.31387/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. BASI REDDY JAYARAMI REDDY S/O B.SUBBA REDDY R/AT LINGA REDDY PALLI VILLAGE, KALSAPADU MANDALAM CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-516001 2. KOPPOLU NARASIMAHA REDDY S/O LATE KOPPOLU JANGAM REDDY R/AT NO.7-4-76, CHEMUDUR CHENNAMAPALLI PANCHANYITHI BADAVEL MANDAMALA CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-516001 3. BSR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY ITS PROPRIETOR Mr. B.SUBBA REDDY, S/O B.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.100/37/5, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, NEAR SILK BOARD, BEHIND MAHENDRA SHOWROOM, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.] AND:
1. G.VASUNDARA LAKSHMI W/O S.VENKATARAMUDU, MAJOR, R/AT NO.385, 38TH A CROSS 26TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560069 REP. ATTORNEY HOLDER S.SUNIL KUMAR S/O S.VENKATARAMUDU, MAJOR, R/AT NO.385 38TH A CROSS 26TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560069 2. T.S.ANIL KUMAR S/O T.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.#2, 9TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.
3. R.MANJUNATHA S/O H.K.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 4TH STAGE, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE 570022.
4. Dr. D.SRINIDHI S/O V.R.DWARAKANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1309, RAJEEVA RANJUTHA, 15TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-18) TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER IN O.S.1455/2018 IN ANNEXURE-A ON I.A.2 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER 39 RULE 3A OF CPC TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD.
IN W.P.No.31388/2018: BETWEEN:
1. B.PRABHANJANA W/O B.VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.6, SY.NO.89/5, LOKESH NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND KARNATAKA BANK, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103.
2. BSR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY ITS PROPRIETOR Mr. B.SUBBA REDDY, S/O B.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.100/37/5, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, NEAR SILK BOARD, BEHIND MAHENDRA SHOWROOM, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.] AND:
1. G.SANTHIRAM S/O P.K.GOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.383/B, RAILWAY OFFICER’S QUARTERS, MG RAILWAY COLONY, MAGADI ROAD POST, BENGALURU-560023.
2. T.S.ANIL KUMAR S/O T.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.#2, 9TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.
3. R.MANJUNATHA S/O H.K.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 4TH STAGE, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE 570022.
4. Dr. D.SRINIDHI S/O V.R.DWARAKANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1309, RAJEEVA RANJUTHA, 15TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER IN O.S.1452/2018 ON I.A.2 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER 39 RULE 3A OF CPC TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD.
IN W.P.No.31389/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. BYREDDY NAGARJUNA REDDY S/O B.SHESHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.30/1, KONAPPANA AGARAHARA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE -560 100 2. G.RAVEENDRA BABU S/O GAJULAPALLE VENKATASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.11/40, MUDIREDDYPALLI MAMILLAPALLE POST KALASAPADU MANDAL MAMILLAPALLE (RURAL) CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-516217 3. BSR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY ITS PROPRIETOR Mr. B.SUBBA REDDY, S/O B.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.100/37/5, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, NEAR SILK BOARD, BEHIND MAHENDRA SHOWROOM, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.] AND:
1. SMT.R.PUSHPA W/O K.LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.190/17, 18TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 2. T.S.ANIL KUMAR S/O T.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.#2, 9TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.
3. R.MANJUNATHA S/O H.K.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 4TH STAGE, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE 570022.
4. Dr. D.SRINIDHI S/O V.R.DWARAKANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1309, RAJEEVA RANJUTHA, 15TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-18) TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER IN O.S.1459/2018 IN ANNEXURE-A ON I.A.2 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER 39 RULE 3A OF CPC TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the XIX Additional City Civil Judge [CCH-18] to pass necessary orders in O.S.No.1452/2018, 1455/2018, 1457/2018 and 1459/2018 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiffs/respondent No.1 in these petitions.
3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 in these petitions have filed suits bearing O.S.Nos.1452/2018, 1455/2018, 1457/2018 and 1459/2018, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit proceedings, the plaintiffs have filed an application I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants. An ex-parte order of temporary injunction has been passed on 27.03.2018 restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners herein have filed objections to I.A.No.2 and prayed for disposal of the said I.A.No.2.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Trial Court is merely adjourning the matter after hearing the parties sans disposing of I.A.No.2 in accordance with law. Learned counsel would point out that O.S.No.386/2018 was filed by the petitioner No.2 herein against the plaintiff and others and an order of temporary injunction is in operation in the said proceedings. Suppressing the same, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in these writ petitions have filed subsequent suits in O.S.No.1452/2018, 1455/2018, 1457/2018 and 1459/2018. An ex-parte temporary injunction has been granted by the Trial Court. It was incumbent on the Trial Court to dispose of the application, I.A.No.2 within a period of thirty days finally, in terms of Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus to the Trial Court is warranted in the circumstances of the case.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the ex-parte temporary injunction order has been passed on considering the I.A.No.2 in the suit proceedings pursuant to which the petitioners have filed objections to the said I.A.No.2. It is submitted that the matter has been adjourned from time to time and no order has been passed as on date.
7. This Court exercising the superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot ordinarily issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Civil Courts. Whereas such writ of mandamus can be issued exercising the equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apt to quote the relevant passage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another V/s.
Chhabi Nath and Others [Civil Appeal No.2548/2009 and allied matter] which reads thus:
“[i] Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution;
[ii] Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226.”
8. The Civil Courts are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice.
9. In the circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to venture on fixing the board of the Civil Court to give preference to a case only because the litigant has approached this Court seeking such a direction to dispose of the matter in an expedite manner. Issuing of such direction in exercising the appellate/revision/writ jurisdiction while adjudicating a dispute is different from considering a case under superintendence jurisdiction. If such direction is issued, the entire discretionary power/the judicial independence of the Court in dealing with the matters, in the dispensation of justice would be defeated and will open a flood gate in the High Court disturbing the administration of justice.
Writ petitions are frivolous and mischievous and accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.