Shri B.Lokesh vs Smt.Sarojamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 7808 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

             W.A. NO.1119 OF 2021 (CS-RES)
                          IN
             W.P.No.20100 OF 2016 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    SHRI. B. LOKESH
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
      S/O LATE SHRI BASAVAIAH
      RESIDING AT NO.875, 16TH MAIN
      3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
      BANGALORE-560 010.

2.    SHRI. P. SELVAM
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
      S/O SHRI. S. PERUMAL
      RESIDING AT NO.25, 11TH CROSS
      MANJUNATH NAGAR, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
      CHOLUR PALYA, BANGALORE-560 023.

                                          ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. PRADEEPKUMAR, ADV., FOR
    MR. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.      SMT. SAROJAMMA
        AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
        W/O LATE SHRI. K. NARAYANAN
                               2



      RESIDING AT NO.560, 10TH MAIN
      5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINGAR
      BANGALORE-560 010.

2.    THE BINNYPET GRUHA NIRMANA
      SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA
      HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
      NO.4, BINNY LAYOUT, 12TH CROSS
      MANJUNATHANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD
      BANGALORE-560 027
      REPTD BY ITS PRESIDENT /SECRETARY.

3.    THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
      BANGALORE REGION
      PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD
      PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS
      CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R3)
                            ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 15/04/2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.20100/2016 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF
OR RELIEFS.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the

judgment dated 15.04.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1

has been allowed and the order dated 20.09.2015 passed by

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal' for short) has been set aside and the matter

has been remitted to the Tribunal to decide the appeal filed

by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on merits in accordance with law.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal breifly

stated are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised a dispute

under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act,

1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The

Deputy Registrar by an order dated 13.04.2005 passed an

order in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is pertinent to

note that respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 31.12.2002 itself had

also filed a civil suit seeking the relief of declaration in

respect of the same cause of action. However, the plaint was

rejected by an order of the jurisdictional Civil Court dated

05.09.2011 inter alia on the ground that respondent Nos.1

and 2 have already resorted to the remedy prescribed under

Section 70 of the Act and that the civil court did not have the

jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the respondent

No.1 and 2.

3. The aforesaid order dated 13.04.2005 passed by

the Deputy Registrar was challenged before the Appellate

Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 29.09.2015 allowed

the appeal inter alia holding that the Deputy Registrar had

not appreciated the fact viz., whether he had jurisdiction to

adjudicate the claim made by the Respondent No.1 and 2

before him and accordingly had set aside the order dated

13.04.2005 passed by the Duty Registrar. The aforesaid

order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was challenged in a

writ petition before the learned Single Judge who by an order

dated 15.04.2021 has quashed the order dated 29.09.2015

passed by the tribunal and the matter was remitted to the

tribunal to decide the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2

on merits as the issue of jurisdiction stands concluded in

favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be permitted to prosecute

two remedies simultaneously and therefore, the learned

Single Judge grossly erred in remitting the matter to the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to decide the appeal on

merits. On the other hand, learned Additional Government

Advocate has supported the order passed by learned Single

Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 had raised a dispute under Section

70 of the Act as well as had filed a suit seeking the relief of

declaration on 31.12.2002 before the jurisdictional civil court.

However, the order dated 13.04.2005 was passed in favour

of respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 70 of the Act by the

Deputy Registrar, whereas, the suit filed by respondent

Nos.1 and 2, the plaint was rejected by an order dated

05.09.2011 on the ground that the Civil Court lacked

jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the Respondent

Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the learned

single Judge has rightly held that the dispute raised by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 was concluded in their favour and

the Appellate Tribunal erred in not deciding the appeal on

merits. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly

directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on

merits.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge. In the

result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SS