IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.15886/2019 (GM-CPC) Between:
M/s. Ravika Creations Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr. Vikram Chabria, No.62/4, Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 068. ...Petitioner (By Sri. S.V.Bhat, Advocate) And:
1. Mrs. Brinda Pathi, W/o. Late P.S.Clement, Aged about 48 years.
2. Angeline Shivani Pathi, D/o. Late P.S.Clement, Aged about 17 years, Rep. by her mother and Natural guardian, Mrs. Brinda Pathi.
Both respondents are residing at No.315, Srishti Green Park Layout, Dodda Banasawadi, Bengaluru-560 043. … Respondents (By Sri. Sundara Raman.M.V, Advocate for C/R) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of the case in O.S.No.26964/2011 on the file LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75); set aside the order on I.A.No.2/2016 in O.S.No.26964/2011 on the file of LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75) at Annexure-J.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in O.S.No.26964/2011 for a money decree is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 25.02.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J, whereby learned LXXIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has rejected its application in I.A.No.2 of 2016 filed u/s.151 of CPC 1908 seeking stay of the suit proceedings. The respondents having entered caveat through their counsel, resist the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of the order made by this Court in Co.P.No.77/2010, whereby a Chartered Accountant is appointed to ascertain the liability of the petitioner company is an admitted liability or not and whether the husband of 1st respondent herein had actually advanced the subject amount to the petitioner company, the suit proceedings need to be halted till after the said exercise is undertaken; this having not being done, there is error apparent on the face of the record. He hastens to add that the run of the parallel proceedings is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner and it may affect the exercise to be undertaken by the Chartered Accountant in terms of company court order, inasmuch as the question to be determined by him is the issue which the court would consider in the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the Caveator makes submission in justification of the impugned order contending that Sec.151 of CPC cannot be invoked in view of specific provision, namely Section10 being on the statute book ; even otherwise also extraordinary circumstances are not made out for stay of the suit when such a stay is not invokable in terms of Section 10.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator. I have perused the petition papers. I have also adverted to the rulings cited at the Bar. This Court does not grant indulgence in the mater for the following reasons:
a) ordinarily, the request for stay of suit proceedings can be considered if there is another suit as contemplated under Section 10 CPC, 1908 which in the present case is absent of course, subject to exceptions into which case of the petitioner does not fit; the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of SUBHO RAM KALTA (DECEASED BY LRS) & OTHERS VS. DHARMESWAR DAS AND OTHERS, AIR 1987 GAUHATI 73 does not come to the aid of the petitioner since the stay of suit in the said case was directed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 to prevent abuse of process of Court, which is not the case here;
b) the decision dated 25.08.2012 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25787/2012 (GM-CPC) is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as, the suit in O.S.No.1657/2008 was stayed in the said case because of the pendency of RFA No.2449/2007 arising from another suit and not from a company petition unlike in the present case; thus, facts of this case and the facts of present writ petition are poles asunder;
c) the report in the making, of the Chartered Accountant appointed by the company Court in the subject company petition may constitute a piece of evidence which either party may press into suit, depending upon its recommendation/finding; after all, the report as such does not have proprio vigor force; it is preposterous to speak about the report when it is yet to be made after hearing all the stakeholders and it is not known what the company court is going to do with it, and ;
d) the justice of the case does not warrant staying of the suit in question.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-