Farmland Rainwater Harvesting ... vs M/S Besten Engineers & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12453 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

       WRIT PETITION No.36284 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN

FARMLAND RAINWATER
HARVESTING SYSTEMS
NO.7/4/2/256, 1ST FLOOR,
S.G.S. COMPLEX, K M ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI MICHAEL SADANANDA BAPTIST
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAND H N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    M/S BESTEN ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
      INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
      F-2, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS,
      NO.95, PERIYARPATHAI,
      CHOOLAIMEDU (WEST)
      CHENNAI-600 094
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      MANAGING DIRECTOR

2.    M/S BESTEN ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
      INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
      F-2, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS,
      NO.95, PERIYARPATHAI,
      CHOOLAIMEDU (WEST),
      CHENNAI-600 094
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
                                         2




        SENIOR CONSULTANT
        MR RAJAGOPAL PAI
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE FOR R1
 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/ QUASH
THE ORDER DTD.7.7.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN
O.S.NO.160/2016 AT ANNEX-H ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE I.A.NO.II AND ETC.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                  ORDER

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order

dated 7.7.2017 passed on IA.No.2 in OS.No.160/2016 by

the II Additional Civil Judge at Chikkamagaluru

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Petitioner

appointed the Respondents as Consultants for availing

their services for design, detailed engineering and

procurement support for its proposed factory at

Chikmagalur and also paid a sum of `8,38,065/-. Pursuant

to the same, the Respondents initially provided master

plan, some designs, drawings, etc and also prepared an

estimation of the project. Various correspondences were

exchanged and meetings took place with regard to the

scope of work that is required to be carried out by the

Respondents. Due to various reasons, disputes arose

between the Petitioner and the Respondents, as a result of

which the Petitioner claimed a sum of `4,12,768/- from the

Respondents. Since the Respondents did not pay the said

amount, the Petitioner instituted a suit on 29.3.2016 in

OS.No.160/2016 in the Court of the Principal Judge,

Chikmagaluru. It is alleged that the suit in

OS.No.1806/2016 filed at Chennai was filed prior to the

suit in OS.No.160/2016 filed by the Petitioner.

3. The reliefs claimed in OS No.1806/2016 filed

before the Civil Judge at Chennai by the Respondents

against the Petitioner are:

"a) Directing them to pay a sum of Rs.866139.90 - with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till the realization

b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant their man agents or their henchmen from threatening the plaintiff in any manner

c) Permanent injunction against the defendant from using/ executing the plaintiff design/ drawings in any manner in respect of Farmland Rainwater Harvest System project or in any other project of the defendants.

d) The cost of this suit."

4. The reliefs claimed in the OS No.160/20156

filed by the petitioner against the respondents are:

"a) Pass a judgment and Decree against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs4,12,768.05 (Rupees four lakhs twelve thousand seven hundred sixty eight and paise five only) together with court costs and interest at @18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

b) Pass such other order/s as deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the suit, in the ends of justice and equity."

5. Upon receipt of the suit summons, the

Respondents entered appearance in OS.No.160/2016 and

filed their written statement. They have also filed IA.No.2

under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to

stay the proceedings in OS.No.160/2016 till disposal of

OS.No.1806/2016 pending before the Chennai Court. The

Trial Court, vide order dated 7.7.2017 allowed the

application filed by the Respondents and stayed the said

suit till disposal of OS No.1806/2016. Being aggrieved,

the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

that the reliefs claimed in both the suits were different;

that the scope of the suit filed by the Respondents is

different from the scope of the suit filed by the Petitioner;

that the Respondents have deliberately filed a suit in

Chennai although no part of cause of action arise in

Chennai; that before the Petitioner was notified of the suit

in OS.No.1806/2016, OS No.160/2016 is filed before the

Court of Chikmagaluru. Hence, he seeks for allowing the

Writ Petition and setting aside the order dated 7.7.2017.

He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Aspi Jal and Anr., v. Khushroo Rustom

Dadyburjor1.

AIR 2013 SC 1712

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondents justifies the order passed by the Trial

Court.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the

parties. The question that arises for consideration is,

'Whether the order dated 7.7.2017 passed by

the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with?

9. The relief sought in OS No.160/2016 filed by

the Petitioner is for recovery of money together with

interest, whereas in OS No.1806/2016 filed by the

Respondents apart from seeking for recovery of money

together with interest, reliefs (b) and (c) have been

sought which are in the nature of injunction. Further, the

cause of action as is forthcoming from the plaint in both

the suits is different.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Aspi

Jal (supra) has held that for Section 10 of the CPC to be

attracted, the cause of action, subject matter and relief

ought to be the same. As noticed above, the cause of

action and the relief claimed in both the suits are different.

The Trial Court, merely upon noticing that the suit in OS

No.160/2016 is subsequent to the suit in OS

No.1806/2016 and holding that the matter in issue is the

same has allowed the application Under Section 10 of the

CPC.

11. Having regard to the fact that the Respondents

have failed in satisfying the criteria for invocation of

Section 10 of the CPC, it is just and proper that the order

passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the application of

the Respondents is rejected.

12. In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

ii) The order dated 7.7.2017 passed on IA.No.2 in

OS.No.160/2016 is set aside, consequently,

IA.No.2 is dismissed.

No costs.

SD/-

JUDGE

nd