IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.239 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MADAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS WORKING AS PRESIDENT SHIMOGA CHARAKA MATTU GRAMODYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA RESIDENT OF GANDHINAGAR OPPOSITE TO BHANDARI GAS AGENCY, SHIMOGA- 577 201 2. SRI MUDALA GIRIYAPPA S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS SECRETARY TO SHIMOGA CHARAKA MATTU GRAMODYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA- 577 201 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ADITYA KUMAR H.R., ADV. FOR SRI DAYANANDA S PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. MYSORE CHARAKA PRACHARA SANGHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI R NAMADEV, S/O RUDRAPPA H AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT OF MADAKARIPURA CHITRADURGA CITY- 577 501 2. SATEESHCHANDRA K.V.LOKESH ADVOCATES CHARAKA AND GRAMODYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA NI.
NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA- 577 201 3. NAGESHAN N ADVOCATE CHARAKA AND GRAMODYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA NI.
NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA- 577 201 4. RAMESH S/O ADISHESHA OWNER OF FILM CENTRE- SITUATED AT CHARAKA AND GRAMODYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA NI. NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA- 577 201, … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD: 04.09.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 8 IN O.S. NO. 481/2014 BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, JR. DN. & JMFC AT SHIMOGA VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Sri. Adithya Kumar, H R, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., and JMFC, Shivamogga by which the Trial Court has allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 and has directed defendant Nos.3 to 5 i.e., the tenants in the suit property to deposit the rent in the Court.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Writ Petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking relief of delivery of vacant possession and for mesne profits against the petitioners in O.S.No.481/2014. Petitioners filed the written statement and denied the title of the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to deposit the rent of the suit property in the Court. The Trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.1 has not title in respect of the aforesaid property and therefore, the rent ought to have been directed to be paid to the petitioners.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any application before the trial court seeking direction to pay rents to them. Respondent No.1 has filed an application seeking a direction to the tenants to deposit the rent before the trial Court which has been allowed by the trial Court on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to the title of the suit property between the petitioners and respondent No.1. The issue of ownership is to be adjudicated in the suit. The impugned order neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 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.
In the result, I do not find any merit in this petition.
The same fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE brn