Karnataka High Court
Sri. M K Shivakumar vs Smt. V Manjula on 11 January, 2021
Author: Krishna S.Dixitpresided Byksdj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.42008 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.K. SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.269, 1ST MAIN,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
SY.NO.22/1, HOUSE NO.54 & 55,
NEST TO MUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
NEAR BENGALURU ENGLISH SCHOOL,
NAGANATHPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURESH.P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. V. MANJULA,
W/O D.MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.136, 1ST STAGE,
B.T.M. LAYOUT,
OLD MADIVALA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
2 . SRI. KAMARASAN (ARMY)
S/O CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KONDRAMPATTI VILLAGE,
IRUMATHUR POST,
HANURU TALUK,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU - 642 201.
2
3 . SRI. A.DAVID RAJ,
S/O D.ARULSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.33/1,
5TH CROSS, III MAIN,
LALIGNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 030.
4 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
W/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,
4(a) SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
4(b) SRI. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
4(c) ANITHA,
D/O LATE CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ABOVE ALL 4(a) TO (c) ARE RESIDING AT
NO.150, DODDANAGAMANGALA,
ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.
5 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: NAGANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.S. JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R4(a)(b)(c)
ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD: 23/09/2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM HON'BLE 1ST APPELLATE COURT i.e. PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGLURU(R) DISTRICT BENGALURU IN
R.A.NO.105/2016; QUASH THE ORDERS IA DTD. 25.03.2017 IN
R.A NO.105/2016 ON ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY OF SINGLE
REGULAR APPEAL ON THE PENDING FILE OF THE HON'BLE 1ST
APPELLATE COURT i.e. PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
3
BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A DATED
25.3.2017 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT
THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being the opponent in R.A.No.105/2016 is
knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order
dated 25.03.2017 whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bangaluru Rural District has rejected his application
wherein he has raised the question of maintainability of the
single appeal when challenge was to the judgment & decree
commonly entered in two suits namely O.S.No.669/2008 &
O.S.No.28/2009.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having
entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ
petition making submission in justification of the impugned
order and the reasons on which it is structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to
grant indulgence in the matter since the respondents do not
happen to be parties to the suit in O.S.No.28/2009 and
therefore, the question of their laying a challenge to the
judgment & decree made therein does not even remotely
arise.
4. It hardly needs to be stated that in our legal
system, only judgments & decrees passed in the following
four jurisdictions alone operate as judgments in rem:
(i) Matrimonial Jurisdiction, (ii) Admiralty Jurisdiction
(iii) Insolvency Jurisdiction & (iv) Probate Jurisdiction as
discussed by Woodroffe and Amir Ali in their Magnum Opus
"Evidence Act" that being the position, the right to challenge a
decree in personam does not avail to a person who is not a
party to the proceedings in which the said judgment has been
rendered, subject to all just exceptions into which argued
case of the parties does not fit.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being
misconceived is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
