Cecilia Fernandes vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2446 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                  O.S.A. NO.1 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

CECILIA FERNANDES
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
DOOR NO.12-4-50C
JAGANNATH NAYAK ROAD
KADBETTU, UDUPI, KARNATAKA-576101.
                                             .... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. IRFANA NAZEER, ADV., FOR
    SRI. PAARAS PANDEY, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BANK OF INDIA
RACPC BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.117 GROUND FLOOR
OPPOSITE VAIDEHI HOSPITAL
WHITEFIELD ROAD
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560 066.

ALSO AT INDIRANAGARA BRANCH
2987, 12TH MAIN HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE KARNATAKA -560 038.

AND WITH CORPORATE OFFICE AT
STATE BANK BHAVAN, CORPORATE CENTER
MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI -400 021 (MAHARASHTRA)
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                                            ... RESPONDENT
                                2



     THIS O.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, ARISING FROM THE
JUDGMENT IN C.P.NO.1/2021) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, DATED 25TH JUNE
2021 IN C.P. 1/2021. PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS DIRECTING
TRANSFER OF THE SUIT BEARING S.C. 1109/2019 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE LD. X SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, AT
BENGALURU (SCCH-16) TO THE FILE OF THE LD. XII ADDL. CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-27) AND
CONSEQUENTLY & ETC.

     THIS O.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,               THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Smt.Irfana Nazeer, learned counsel for Mr.Paaras

Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

This original side appeal has been filed against the

order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

on the civil petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

2. Office has raised an objection with regard to

maintainability of the appeal. The issue which arises for

consideration in this appeal is whether an order passed by

the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing or

dismissing an application under Section 24 of the Code of

Civil Procedure is one made in exercise of original jurisdiction

of the High Court under the Act or under any other law for

the time being in force.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

Division Bench decision of this Court in 'SANGANBHAT Vs.

VASUDEV AND OTHERS' 1976 ILR 192 has no bearing on

the issue as the Division Bench of this Court dealt with an

order passed on an application under Section 116 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant

has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge on a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure is in exercise of original jurisdiction and therefore,

an appeal lies under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court

Act, 1961 read with provisions of Chapter VI Item A of the

Karnataka High Court Rules, 1961.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant. The issue involved in this

appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this

Court in SANGANBHAT, supra. In the aforesaid decision,

the Division Bench dealt with an order by which the

appellant's petition for withdrawal of the regular appeal

pending on the file of the Court of Bijapur to this Court for

analogous hearing along with regular second appeal, was

decided. A Division Bench of this Court formulated the

question which arises in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid

judgment in the following terms:

"The question is whether an order made by a single Judge of the High Court allowing or dismissing an app/ under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is one made in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under the Act or under any law for the time being in force."

5. The aforesaid issue was answered by the Division

Bench of this Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment. The

relevant extract reads as under:

" 7. xxxx Since this is not an order made by a Single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court, no appeal under Section 4 of the Act lies. xxxx"

6. Thus, it is evident that the aforesaid issue is

squarely covered by the order passed by the learned Single

Judge on a petition under Section 24 of the Act, cannot be

said to be an order passed in exercise of original jurisdiction.

7. We respectfully agree with the law laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court and with the reasons assigned by

the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, we hold that this

appeal is not maintainable.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not

maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV