IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18044 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. B. V. OMPRAKASH S/O LATE V. VENKATESHAIAH MAJOR, 47 YEARS NO.68, 3RD CROSS RAOD RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, KADIRENAHALLI UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560070 (BY SRI. B. V. OMPRAKASH, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND SRI. T. SHAM BHAT THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. M. VIJAY, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE IN MISC. PETITION NO.171/2014 DT.25.2.2014, ANNX-A; CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION IN MISC. PETITION NO.171/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner in-person. Sri. A. M. Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the trial Court by which the trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’ for short).
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed the suit namely O.S.No.7946/1998, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner had also filed another civil suit in which an order of temporary injunction was granted and subsequently the suit was disposed of. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has violated the order of injunction granted in the aforesaid civil suit. Therefore the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code which was registered as Miscellaneous Petition Nos.643/2013 and 644/2013. The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Section 24 seeking transfer of the aforesaid proceedings to the Court where O.S.No.7946/1998 was pending. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order.
4. Petitioner who has appeared in-person has submitted that the property in question is the same and the parties are also the same and therefore the trial Court ought to have transferred the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) to the Court where the civil suit, namely O.S.No.7946/1998 was pending.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the violation of the order of injunction was claimed in respect of an order which was passed in different suit and therefore it was not necessary to club the proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parities and perused the records.
7. Admittedly the petitioner has instituted the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code for violation of the order of injunction in respect of a different suit. He seeks transfer of the proceedings in the Court where O.S.No.7946/1998 is pending. O.S.No.7946/1998 is based on a different cause of action and the petitions under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) have been filed on a different cause of action. In both the proceedings the trial Court is required to record evidence separately. Therefore the trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case, the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
8. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD