Karnataka High Court
Young Mens Christian Association vs Mr. John Kennedy on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.24589/2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
(REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.14, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI DANIEL RATHNAKAR
S/O LATE SRI J JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
Y.M.C.A., AT NO.14
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DR. G SUKUMARAN, ADV.)
AND:
MR. JOHN KENNEDY
S/O LATE SRI V JOHNSON
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASSOCIATED GENERAL SECRETARY
YMCA, BENGALURU-560001
(UNDER SUSPENSION)
RESIDING AT NO.G2
AKASHDEEP APARTMENTS
47 C.P.V. BLOCK, 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU-560032.
....RESPONDENT
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
25.10.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-1) IN MISC.NO.886/2023, IN
DISMISSING THE PETITIONER U/S 24 OF THE CPC VICE
ANNEXURE-A AND IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 08/11/2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.2995/2023
and petitioner in Misc.No.886/2023 is before this Court,
questioning the order dated 25.10.2023 passed in
Misc.886/2023 dismissing the petition filed under
Section 24 of CPC to transfer O.S.No.2955/2023 from
CCH-12 to any other Additional Judge, City Civil Court at
Bangalore.
2. Heard learned counsel Dr.G.Sukumaran for
petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.2995/2023 filed
Misc.No.886/2023 under Section 24 of CPC praying to
transfer the suit from CCH-12 to any other Court at City
Civil court at Bangalore on the ground that the petitioner
has reasonable apprehension that they might not get
justice before CCH-12 and the Presiding Officer is biased
against them. Learned counsel would submit that the
Principal City Civil Judge committed an error in
dismissing the said transfer petition under impugned
order dated 25.10.2023. Learned counsel would submit
that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in
O.S.No.2995/2023 was for a judgment and decree to
declare that the Letter and Suspension order dated
25.04.2023 is null and void and not binding on the rights
of the plaintiff and for consequential injunction. It is
submitted that since the petitioner/defendant had filed
caveat, notice on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 and suit summons was
ordered. The petitioner/defendant appeared through
counsel on 17.05.2023 and on 26.05.2023 written
statement as well as objections to the I.As.No.1, 2 and 3
was filed. On the said date I.A.Nos.2 and 3 were heard
and the suit was posted for defendant's argument on
29.05.2023. On 29.05.2023, petitioner/defendant filed
I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. On
29.05.2023, the suit was adjourned to 30.05.2023 for
filing plaintiff's objections to I.A.Nos.5 and 6 and also to
hear defendant's side arguments on I.A.Nos.2 and 3.
On 30.05.2023, plaintiff filed objections to I.A.Nos.5 and
6 and the matter was adjourned to 09.06.2023 to hear
on I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. On 09.06.2023, the trial Court
heard arguments of the defendant on I.A.No.2 and
I.A.No.5. On the said date, the trial Court adjourned the
matter for further hearing on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 to
12.06.2023. While adjourning the suit to 12.06.2023,
the trial Court directed the defendant not to conduct
enquiry till disposal of I.A.No.2. I.A.No.2 was filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff
to restrain and direct the defendant from restraining and
restricting the plaintiff from attending to his office work
in the schedule premises. Thereafter, the trial Court
heard I.A.Nos.2 and 5 fully on 12.06.2023 and on
17.07.2023, pronounced orders on I.A.Nos.2 and 5. The
trial Court allowed I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and dismissed I.A.No.5 filed by the
defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
petitioner/defendant expresses no confidence in the
Court on the ground that the trial Court without there
being any reason on 09.06.2023 passed order, directing
the defendant not to conduct enquiry till disposal of
I.A.No.2. Further, learned counsel would also submit
that when I.A.No.5 was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)
and (d) of CPC, the trial Court was bound to hear the
said application and thereafter ought to have heard
other applications. Even though the petitioner
requested the trial Court to hear the said application at
the first instance, the trial Court failed to take note of
the same and proceeded to pass orders on I.A.Nos.2
and 4. Further, learned counsel would submit that the
trial Court also failed to consider I.A.Nos.4 and 6 filed by
petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking production
of documents from the respondent as well as application
filed under Section 195(i)(b) and Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel taking through the order sheet would
submit that the procedure followed by the trial Court
would not repose confidence and as such, the Principal
City Civil Judge ought to have entertained the petition
filed under Section 24 of CPC and ought to have
transferred the suit to any other Court. The sequence of
events in the order sheet would support the contention
of the petitioner and their apprehension that they would
not get justice from CCH-12. Thus, he prays for
allowing the petition filed under Section 24 of CPC and
to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2023
passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in
Misc.No.886/2023.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/defendant and on perusal of the writ petition
papers, I am of the view that learned Principal City Civil
and Sessions Judge is justified in rejecting the
Misc.No.886/2023 filed under Section 24 of CPC under
impugned order dated 25.10.2023.
5. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff is one for
declaration that Letter and Suspension order dated
25.04.2023 issued by the petitioner/defendant-
Organization is null and void and not binding on the
rights of the plaintiff and also for consequential
mandatory injunction. A perusal of the order sheet
indicates that since the petitioner/defendant had filed
caveat, the Court rightly ordered issuance of notice on
I.A.Nos.1 to 3 and suit summons to the defendant
through Court as well as by hand. On 17.05.2023, the
petitioner/defendant appeared through its Advocate by
filing vakalath. At the request of the petitioner/
defendant, the suit was adjourned to 22.05.2023 for
filing objections to I.A. and for filing written statement.
Again at the request of defendant, the suit was
adjourned to 26.05.2023 for filing objections to I.As.
and written statement. On 26.05.2023, the
petitioner/defendant filed written statement as well as
objections along with list of documents. On the same
day, the plaintiff addressed his arguments on I.A.Nos.2
and 3 and for defendant's side hearing on I.A.Nos.2 and
3, the suit was adjourned to 29.05.2023. On
29.05.2023, instead of arguing on I.As.No.2 and 3, the
petitioner/defendant files I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule
11(a) and (d) of CPC and the suit was adjourned for
plaintiff's objection to I.A.Nos.5 and 6 and also to hear
defendant on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 to 30.05.2023. On
30.05.2023, the respondent/plaintiff filed his objections
to I.A.Nos.5 and 6. Again the suit was adjourned for
hearing on I.As.No.2, 3, 4 and 5 to 09.06.2023. Again,
on 09.06.2023, the petitioner/defendant instead of
arguing on the applications, filed one more application
under Section 195(1)(b) and Section 340 of Cr.P.C. On
the same day, the respondent/plaintiff filed objections to
the said application. The trial Court heard arguments of
the plaintiff on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 and to hear defendant on
I.A.Nos.2 and 5 adjourned the suit to 12.06.2023. As
the matter was being adjourned for further hearing of
defendant on I.A.Nos.2 and 5, the trial Court thought it
fit to direct the defendant not to conduct enquiry till
disposal of I.A.No.2. After hearing the learned counsel
for defendant on 12.06.2023 on I.A.Nos.2 and 5, the
trial Court posted the I.As. for orders to 28.06.2023,
30.06.2023 and on 17.07.2023. On 17.07.2023, the
trial Court allowed I.A.No.2 filed by respondent/plaintiff
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and dismissed
I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order
VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. It is pertinent to note
here that against allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the
respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC, the petitioner/defendant preferred Miscellaneous
First Appeal before this Court and against rejection of
I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of
CPC, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petition
before this Court.
6. Merely because, during the course of hearing
I.A.Nos.2 and 5, the trial Court directed the
petitioner/defendant not to conduct enquiry till disposal
of I.A.No.2 and merely because the request of the
petitioner to hear I.A.No.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC at the first instance, before considering other
I.As. are rejected, cannot be a reason to apprehend that
the petitioner/defendant would not get justice from the
said Court. In fact, it is the petitioner's own making.
Petitioner/defendant before the Trial Court appeared on
17.05.2023 through his advocate and at his request on
the said date, suit was adjourned to 22.05.2023 for
filing objections and again on the said date, at
petitioner/defendant's request, suit was adjourned to
26.05.2023 for filing objections to I.As and written
statement. Though the petitioner/defendant filed
objections on 26.05.2023 and respondent/plaintiff
completed his arguments on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 and for
petitioner/defendant's arguments, it was adjourned to
29.05.2023. Instead of arguing on 29.05.2023,
petitioner/defendant filed two I.As i.e., I.A.Nos.5 and 6
and the suit was adjourned to 30.05.2023 for objections
by respondent/plaintiff to I.A.Nos.5 and 6 and to hear
petitioner/defendant on I.A.Nos.1 to 3. On 30.05.2023,
again suit was adjourned to 09.06.2023. Filing of IA by
parties cannot be restricted and it is open for
petitioner/defendant to file IAs for necessary reliefs. But,
filing of IA cannot be a ground to take adjournment from
arguing I.A.Nos.1 to 3 on 29.05.2023, 30.05.2023 and
09.06.2023. Therefore, Trial Court passed order on
09.06.2023 and directed defendant not to conduct
enquiry till disposal of I.A.No.2. In fact, the trial Court
is justified in hearing I.A.Nos.2 and 5 together, since by
the time, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.5 under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the trial Court had heard
arguments of the plaintiff on I.A.No.2 and it was at the
stage of hearing the petitioner/defendant on I.A.No.2.
Merely because there is some typographical mistake in
the order sheet, the petitioner cannot allege no
confidence in the Court. Moreover, the petitioner/
defendant has challenged the orders passed on
I.A.Nos.2 and 5 before this Court.
7. Learned Principal City Civil Judge under impugned
order has rightly rejected petitioner's application under
Section 24 of CPC for transfer of the suit to any other
Court. A perusal of the order sheet would indicate that
the trial Court has followed the procedure as far as
possible and passed orders on I.A.Nos.2 and 5. The
grounds urged or apprehension expressed by
petitioner/defendant cannot be remotely be ground for
transfer.
8. For mere asking, the suit cannot be transferred
unless there is serious allegation and it would have
serious consequences on the trial. Thus, I do not find
any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ
petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mpk/-*
CT:bms
