Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Janardhan vs Sri. Gopinath S/O. Haridas Kidiyoor on 18 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
WP No. 102291 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 102291 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K. JANARDHAN,
S/O. RAMDAS SARALAYA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PANCHAMI BUILDING,
TRANING COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR K.C. PARK, DHARWAD-580007.
2. SMT. JYOTI
W/O. JANARDHAN SARALAYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R R/O. PANCHAMI BUILDING,
TRANING COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR K.C. PARK, DHARWAD-580007.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.R. BENTUR & SRI SHIVAPRASAD S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN SRI GOPINATH
KATTIMANI
S/O. HARIDAS KIDIYOOR,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. SRI HARI, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH SHAKTI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580007.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPINATH H. KIDIYOOR, PARTY IN PERSON FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01-04-2024
PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD ON I.A. DATED 30-03-2024 IN R.A. NO.55/2022
VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. DATED
30.03.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
WP No. 102291 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:
"Issue a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the Order
dated 01-04-2024 passed by the learned IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad on I.A. dated
30.03.2024 in R.A. no.55/2022 vide Annexure-E and
consequently allow the I.A. dated 30-03-2024 in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. Sri Shivaprasad S.Patil, learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that petitioners were appellants in
R.A.no.55/2022 on file of IV Addl.District and Sessions
Judge, Dharwad. Said appeal was filed challenging judgment
and decree dated 23.09.2022 passed by III Addl.Senior Civil
Judge, Dharwad in FDP no.26/2010. It was submitted on
13.06.2023, appellate Court had granted interim order of
stay of execution of impugned judgment and decree for
period of four months or till disposal of appeal whichever was
earlier. Thereafter, interim order was extended from time to
time. But, on 30.03.2024, when appellants had filed
application for extension of interim order, appellate Court
rejected application on wholly untenable grounds, prompting
this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
3. It was submitted, though interim order was
granted for period of four months and with observation that
parties shall argue on main matter without delay, thereafter
some time was spent in securing trial Court records.
However, appellants concluded their arguments on
05.10.2023. On same day, respondents also concluded their
arguments. Thereafter, it was adjourned for reply by
appellants. Since appellants were co-operating for early
disposal, they filed I.A. under Section 151 for extension of
stay dated 13.06.2023. At that stage, respondent filed
I.A.no.V under Section 151 of C.P.C. for vacating interim
order. Thereafter matter was adjourned for consideration of
I.A.no.V until its dismissal on 04.12.2023. Subsequently,
applications under Section 151 of C.P.C. for extension of
interim order were filed by appellants and allowed on dates
of hearing as there was no lapse on part of appellants in
pursuing appeal.
4. But on 30.03.2024, when appellants filed
application under Section 151 of C.P.C. for extension of
interim order, respondent filed application by relying on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
decision of Apex Court in Crl.Appeal no.3589/2023. Without
considering facts and circumstances and merely relying on
above decision, trial Court rejected application. Hence, this
writ petition.
5. It was submitted, decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court relied upon was later held not good law and pendency
of appeal beyond four months was not due to any reason
attributable to appellants especially when they were always
ready to go on with matter and submitted that appellants
had abided by their undertaking.
6. On other hand, Sri Gopinath H.Kidiyoor,
party-in-person sought to oppose writ petition. It was
submitted that there were no good grounds to grant interim
order and in fact appeal itself was untenable. On
13.06.2023, matter was listed before in-charge Court and
interim order was granted. Subsequently, appellants had
sought to dilate by seeking adjournments. Therefore,
rejection of application was fully justified.
7. Heard and perused writ petition record.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
8. From above, it is seen that appellants are
challenging order passed rejecting application for extension
of interim order during pendency of appeal. Pendency of
appeal as well as grant of interim order on 13.06.2023 are
not in dispute. Though order dated 13.06.2023 had stated
that interim order would subsist for four months or till
disposal of appeal whichever was earlier, it cannot be stated
that appellate Court was without any power to extend
interim order till disposal of appeal. For said purpose, facts
and circumstances including conduct of parties would be
relevant.
9. Perusal of order sheet in appeal would reveal that
appellate Court had adjourned appeal on several dates after
13.06.2023 for securing records from trial Court. Similarly
consideration of I.A.no.V filed by respondent had resulted in
several adjournments. It is seen that appellants and
respondent concluded arguments on main appeal on
05.10.2023. Therefore, matter was at stage of reply
arguments by appellants and appeal could be disposed of
shortly. Under such circumstances, extension of interim
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
order for a short further duration i.e. until disposal of appeal
would have been most appropriate especially in absence of
any specific observation about dilatory tactics on part of
appellants. Ill-health of counsel cannot be considered as
dilatory in nature unless it is for unreasonable or
unjustifiable period of time. Since instant case does not
disclose any such lapse on part of appellants, impugned
order would be unsustainable.
10. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later
order passed on 29.02.2024 in Crl.Appeal no.3589/2023 and
connected matters re-examined legality of automatic
vacation of interim orders and held same to be not good law.
11. Hence, impugned order calls for interference, but,
on terms.
12. Writ petition is allowed in part, order dated
01.04.2024 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of C.P.C.
by appellants on 30.03.2024, is set aside. Said application is
allowed and interim order is continued with direction to
appellants to appear before first appellate Court and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6502
conclude arguments in time bound manner without seeking
adjournment. Respondent shall also do likewise. First
appellate Court or in-charge Court as case may be shall take
up appeal on day-to-day basis and dispose of same as far as
possible within a period of one month from 28.05.2024, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
