Karnataka High Court
Mrs Uma Venkitaraman vs M/S Aditya And Company on 15 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.17922/2021(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS UMA VENKITARAMAN
W/O LATE K VENKITARAMAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.C-804
MANTRI ELEGANCE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SURAJ SAMPATH, ADV.(VC))
AND
1. M/S ADITYA AND COMPANY
NO.1754 33RD CROSS
12TH MAIN
12TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BANGALORE-560070
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
GURURAJ S LOKKUR
S/O LATE L K SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2
2. M/S TRIBOL ENGINEERING PVT LTD
NO.2516
17TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BANGALORE-560070
COMPANY STRUCT OFF BY THE ROC.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
3. MRS.DEEPA VENKITARAMAN
D/O LATE K VENKITARAMAN
W/O MR RAVI B JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CURRENTLY RESIDING
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
FLAT B4/2, 704 7TH FLOOR
SY NO.38/2B,SHOBHA GARNET
IBBALUR VILLAGE,BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE-560102.
4. MR VIVEK VINKITARAMAN
S/O LATE K VENKITARAMAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2345
GLADSTONE PL CUMMING
GA 30041-6156
FORSYTH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.N.BHAT, ADV. FOKR R1(VC):
NOTICE TO R3 & R4 WAIVED
V/O DATED:30.09.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
3
DIRECT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.22.9.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-13)
IN MISC NO.427/2021 ON IA NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND DIRECT STAYING THE EX-PATE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DTD.10.6.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.4045/2021 BY THE HONBLE V ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-13)
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C TILL THE DISPOSAL OF
MISC NO.427/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE V
ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE
(CCH-13) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in
Misc.No.427/2021, challenging the order dated
10.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.4045/2017 on the file of
the V Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that:
The respondent No.1 herein has filed
O.S.No.4045/2017 before the trial court, seeking the
relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.40,61,374.45/- along
with interest and the suit came to be decreed. In the
meanwhile, the respondent No.1 has filed Execution
No.3808/2019 before the trial court seeking
attachment of the property of the petitioner herein
and the Court by order dated 24.08.2021 has affixed
on the premises belonging to the daughter of the
petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) and the petitioner
herein has urged that the said judgment and decree is
passed without the knowledge of the petitioner herein.
The trial court in Misc.No.427/2021 considering the
I.A.No.1 filed under Section 151 of CPC by the
petitioner herein seeking an ad-interim exparte stay
against the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.4045/2017 dated 10.6.2019, issued notice to
the respondents. However, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 were not
considered on merits. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner herein has approached this Court.
3. I have heard Sri.B.K.Sampath Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri.S.N.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. Sri.B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew the
attention of this Court to the impugned order passed
by the Court in Misc.No.427/2021 in
O.S.No.4045/2017 and argued that the court has
made an observation that the trial court has become
functus officio. With regard to having taken note of
the fact that the suit is filed seeking recovery of
money, as the matter has to be heard by the
Commercial Court as per the provisions of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and since the court itself
has come to the conclusion that it has become
functus officio in so far as jurisdiction is concerned, he
sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri.S.N.Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents has sought to justify
the impugned order.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully
examined the writ papers, which would substantiate
the fact that the respondent No.1 herein has filed
O.S.No.4045/2017 against the petitioner herein,
seeking relief of recovery of money and the trial court
by judgment and decree dated 10.6.2019, decreed the
suit in part, with a direction to the defendants to pay
the amount of Rs.40,26,374.45/- within three months
from the date of the decree and also observed that
the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future
interest at 9% p.a. till realization. Being aggrieved by
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the
defendant No.2(a) in O.S.No.4045/2017 i.e.,
petitioner herein, has filed Misc.No.427/2021 before
the trial court under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, seeking
relief of setting aside the judgment and decree dated
10.6.2019 passed in O.S.No.4045/2017 on the file of
the trial court. Along with the main petition, the
petitioner herein has filed application in I.A.No.1 and
I.A.No.2 seeking stay of the judgment and decree
dated 10.6.2019 passed in O.S.No.4045/2017. The
Miscellaneous Court, after considering the averments
made in the applications, by order dated 22.09.2021,
issued notice on the applications, however, declined to
grant an ad interim stay of judgment and decree
dated 10.6.2019 passed in O.S.No.4045/2017.
7. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the senior counsel for the
petitioner, I have carefully considered the
observations made by the trial court.
8. It is not in dispute that the applications in
I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2 has to be considered by the
Miscellaneous Court with regard to staying the
judgment and decree dated 10.6.2019 passed in
O.S.No.4045/2017. Though there may be an
observation made by the court with regard to the fact
that the said court has become in functus officio, in
view of the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, with
regard to Commercial Court, I am of the view that the
trial court shall consider the applications in accordance
with law with regard to jurisdictional aspects also,
since the applications are pending consideration
before the court with regard to the staying of the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.4045/2017.
9. In that view of the matter, the trial court is
directed to consider the I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2 within
three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law and in the light of the observation made above.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
Writ Petition No.17922 of 2021 (GM-CPC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
[MRS UMA VENKITARAMAN VS. M/S ADITYA AND
COMPANY AND OTHERS]
ESIJ
01.04.2022
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)
ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'
This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on
15.03.2022, with a direction to the Trial Court to consider
I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2 within three months from the date of
receipt of copy of the order. Today the petition is listed for
seeking correction in the order.
In the petition, respondent No.1 had filed a memo by
undertaking that he will not execute the decree passed in
O.S.No.4045/2007 by the Trial Court till the disposal of the
Misc.No.427/2021 on the file of V Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-13). Due to oversight,
the memo filed by respondent No.1 was not incorporated
in the order dated 15.03.2022. Accordingly, the
undertaking given by the respondent No.1 that he will not
execute the decree passed in O.S.No.4045/2007 by the
Trial Court till the disposal of the Misc.No.427/2021 on the
file of V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-13) is accepted.
Therefore, this order is directed to be read along with
the main order dated 15.03.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GJM
