Karnataka High Court
P Venkataswamy vs V C Chennakeshava Reddy on 16 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11514 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
P VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT VOLLURU VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUPATHY T N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. V C CHANNAKESHAVA REDDY
S/O LATE V K CHANNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT VOLLURU VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
2. P RAVI
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. P NARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4. P VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
2
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. P LAKSHMIDEVI
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. P YASHODAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
7. P. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE
R/AT VOLLURU VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572136
8. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER K S P D C L
KARNATAKA SOLAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(NIYAMITHA) 2ND FLOOR SOUTH BLOCK
BEEJARAJA SEEDS COMPLEX
BALLARI ROAD, HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560024
9. THE GENERAL MANAGER K S P D C L
KARNATAKA SOLAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(NIYAMITHA) 2ND FLOOR SOUTH BLOCK
BEEJARAJA SEEDS COMPLEX
BALLARI ROAD, HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560024.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ERAPPA REDDY M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE JUDGMENT
DATED 14TH OCTOBER, 2019 PASSED IN M.A.NO.14 OF 2019 BY THE
COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME IN SO
3
FAR AS THE OBSERVATION IN PARAGRAPH 22 OF THE SAID
JUDGMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 in OS No.
289/2010, challenging the order dated 14.10.2019 passed in MA
No.14 of 2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada
(Annexure-F), dismissing the appeal.
2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this petition
are that, respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff in OS No.289 of
2016 on the file of the trial Court, sought relief of specific
performance and other consequential relief. The said suit was
contested by the defendants by filing the written statement. The
plaintiff has filed IA.8 before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction
restraining the defendants 8 and 9 from interfering and installing
Solar Plant in suit schedule property. The said application was
contested by the defendants. The Trial Court, by its order dated
02.08.2019, rejected the application-IA.8. Feeling aggrieved by
the order passed the trial Court, the plaintiff filed MA. No. 14 of
2019 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was
resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court confirmed
the order passed by the Trial Court dated 02.08.2019 in
OS.No.289 of 2016. However, at paragraph 22 of its judgment,
the First Appellate Court directed the defendants 8 and 9 to
deposit the lease amount in a Bank and further observed that
the parties who succeed in the suit, will entitle for the entire
relief sought in the suit. The said portion of the order passed by
the First Appellate Court at paragraph 22 has been challenged in
this Writ Petition.
3. I have heard Sri.Udaya, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri. Raghupathy T.N., for the petitioner and Sri.
Erappa Reddy M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 and Sri Murugsh V Charati, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.8.
4. Sri Udaya, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that, the defendants are aggrieved by the
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, particularly,
finding recorded at paragraph 22 of its judgment in MA.No. 14 of
2019 with regard to depositing the rent, accrued on account of
Solar plant installation in the suit schedule property. Accordingly,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner insisted that said
portion of the order be set aside in this Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the
court below.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the
plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance and other
consequential reliefs. Plaintiff has filed an application-IA.8 under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary
injunction, wherein, the Trial Court has rejected the same.
However, the First Appellate Court in MA. No. 14 of 2019 passed
equitable order directing the defendants 8 and 9 to release the
lease amount with interest in favour of succeeding person in the
suit. While passing the said order judgment, the First Appellate
Court considered the relief sought for by the plaintiff, which is
for specific performance of the Agreement dated 24.08.1993.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHD.
INAM VS. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2020 SC 3433, wherein, it is held that the High Court should
be slow while exercising the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. At paragraph 32 of the judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"32. It is well-settled principle of law, that in the
guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot
convert itself into a Court of appeal. It is equally
well-settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends
to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits
of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
It has been held, that though the powers under
Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised
sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and
Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and
not to correct mere errors."
8. Therefore, I am of the view that the First Appellate
Court is justified in directing the defendants to release the
amount in favour of the succeeding person in this suit. In that
view of the matter, I do not find any material irregularity in the
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, that too by
interfering under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In view of
the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as
devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
