Karnataka High Court
Shellygreen Medows P Ltd vs Sri. Puttaraju on 22 December, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.984 OF 2021(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHELLYGREEN MEDOWS (P) LTD
EARLIER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI M RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.1177, ROAD NO.56
JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD - 500 033
ANDHRA PRADESH
NOW BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
B.S.NAGARAJ
NO.33, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE - 560 011
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.225
DVM COLONY
BEHIND FOREST OFFICE
DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
2. SRI MAHESH
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
-2-
R/AT NO.225
DVM COLONY
BEHIND FOREST OFFICE
DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
3. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O SRI OMKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
4. SMT. SOWBHAGYA
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU BIDADHAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT RENUKA NILAYA
KHP COLONY, KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
5. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.225, DVM COLONY
BEHIND FOREST OFFICE
DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
6. SMT. PARAVATHAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT SINGAVARA VENKATAGIRI KOTE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
7. SMT. SASHIKALA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT SINGAVARA VENKATAGIRI KOTE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
8. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA AND
W/O CHIKKAHANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT RAMAIAHPALYA
-3-
DODDABALLAPURA POST
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203
9. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA AND
W/O RAVI MALLARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT KODIMANCHENAHALLI
DEVANAHALLI POST
DEVANHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
10. SMT. MAMATHA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT PESSANAHALLI
DEVANAHALLI POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
11. SMT. UMADEVI
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT GALUPOOJE VILLAGE
TIPPURU POST, SASALU HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
12. SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT PESSANAHALLI
DEVANAHALLI POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
13. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT PRASANNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
14. SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY
FATHERS NAME SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
-4-
R/AT PRASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN WP NO.10543/2021 (GM-CPC) ON THE
FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned writ appeal is filed by the appellant
who is respondent No.10 in W.P.No.10543/2021 against the
order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 who are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.772/2006 filed an application in I.A.No.14 under
Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The said
application was rejected by the trial Court. Feeling
aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs questioned the
same before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10543/2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. Learned Single Judge having examined the rival
contentions has allowed the writ petition and consequently,
allowed I.A.No.14 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant who is
defendant No.5 in O.S.No.772/2006 has assailed the order
passed by the learned Single Judge which is arising out of
civil proceedings pending before the competent Court.
5. The office has raised an objection with regard to
the maintainability of the appeal. The issue as to whether
appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
1961(for short, 'Act, 1961') arising out of an order passed
on an interlocutory application in a pending suit is no more
a res-integra. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of
TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs. MISS RENUKA AND OTHERS
reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1207 have held that no appeal
would lie under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 against an order
of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of the power
conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in
respect of an interlocutory order passed in pending civil
suit.
6. We, therefore, uphold the objection raised by
the office and the writ appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable.
Sd-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd-
JUDGE
KPS
