Karnataka High Court
Smt Chithra Panicker vs Smt Navitha M on 12 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
WP No. 16941 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 16941 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHITHRA PANICKER
W/O. SUNIL PANICKER,
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S MODERN SYMBIOSIS GREEN VENTURE,
R/AT SUNNY, 8TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS, G M PALYA,
THIPPASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 075,
BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
SRI. SUNIL PANICKER,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
ANAND N
Location:
HIGH 1. SMT. NAVITHA M.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O. P. LOKESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1209, 2ND H MAIN ROAD,
EAST OF NGEF,
KASTURINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
2. SRI. A. NARASIMHAN
SON OF ARVINDSWAMY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
WP No. 16941 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
FLAT NO.821, SHOBHA FLOWER,
JAYANAGAR,
SANGAM CRICLE,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. VINOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.7.2023 IN OS.NO.5183/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CH-33) VIDE ANNX-A BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 26.07.2023 passed in O.S. No.5183/2016 on the file
of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore [for short, 'the trial Court'] whereby, the request
made by the petitioner-defendant No.1 for adjournment
was refused by the trial Court, which proceeded to post the
matter for judgment. However, in view of the interim order
dated 04.08.2023 passed in present petition, the trial Court
has so far not pronounced the judgment in the matter, and
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
same is posted on 19.02.2023 to await further orders from
this Court.
2. The material on record discloses that the
respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for
ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the
petitioner-defendant No.1, who not only filed the written
statement repudiating the plaint averments but also put
forth counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908, and the matter is pending
adjudication before the trial Court. The respondent No.1
adduced oral and documentary evidence pursuant to
which, the petitioner also adduced oral and documentary
evidence during the course of which, the document styled
as "Business Participation Agreement" was marked as Ex.
D6 on behalf of the petitioner. The Issues/question as to
sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid/payable on
Ex.D6 is pending adjudication before the appellate
authority under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The said
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
appeal before the appellate authority is pending
consideration and has not been disposed of.
3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner
made a request to the trial Court to adjourn the matter for
the purpose of enabling disposal of the appeal before the
appellate authority on the ground that till the appeal was
disposed of, Ex.D6 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner
in support of her defense. However, the trial Court was of
the opinion that the said request cannot be entertained and
proceeded to pass the impugned order posting the matter
for judgment, which is assailed in the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner on
instructions, submits that if the petitioner is permitted to
place reliance upon Ex.D6 for the purpose of disposal of
the suit and the question/Issue regarding payment of stamp
duty on Ex.D6 is directed to be decided by the authorities,
the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition would
be addressed sufficiently.
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1-plaintiff on instructions, submits that he
has no objection for the trial Court to consider Ex.D6 on
merits and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by
leaving open the question regarding stamp duty to be
decided by the appellate authority.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the joint submission made by both sides
that Ex.D6 can be considered by the trial Court for the
purpose of disposal of the suit without reference to the
question/Issue of stamp duty which would have to be
decided by the appellate authority, I deem it just and
appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit
within a period of one [1] month from 19.02.2024 without
reference to the stamp duty payable on Ex.D6, which would
be decided/adjudicated by the appellate authority. It is
made clear that the parties would not be entitled to adduce
further oral or documentary evidence in support of their
respective claims.
NC: 2024:KHC:1742
Subject to the aforesaid directions/observations, the
trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period
of one [1] month from 19.02.2024 after hearing final
arguments on both sides.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
RB
