Karnataka High Court
Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka ... vs Siloam Zion Gospel Fellowship on 16 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41688
WP No. 8144 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI VIDYAVARTHAKA TRUST (R)
NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI 577 301,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI PRASANNANATHA SWAMIJI.
2. SRI PRASANNANATHA SWAMIJI,
VICE PRESIDENT,
SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI
VIDYAVARDHAKA TRUST ®,
NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI 577 301,
SHIVAMAOGGA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI. VENKATESH M S/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by R/O MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
CHETAN B C NTB-443, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI,
Location: SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SILOAM ZION GOSPEL
FELLOWSHIP
REGD OFFICE AT MOOLEKATTE,
'DIVYA NILAYA',HIRIYUR POST, P.O. BOX. 319,
BHADRAVATHI 577 301,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41688
WP No. 8144 of 2024
2. J.D. MOSES S/O DEVANANDAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PRESIDENT,
SILOAM ZION GOSPEL
FELLOWSHIP,
K C BLOCK, III CROSS,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI TOWN 577 301,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KARTHIK S TAYUR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BHADRAVATHI ON IA NO. 47 AND IN OS NO. 33/2004
PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-T TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
B) DIRECTION REJECTING IA NO. 47 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES
TO THE ADDITION OF PRAYER FOR REFUND OF EARNEST
MONEY, IN OS NO. 33/2004 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BHADRAVATHI.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendants seeks to call in
question the order dated 22.02.2024 whereby, the
respondent-plaintiffs' application in I.A.No.47 filed under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 read with Section 22 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been favoured in a pending
Specific Performance Suit in O.S.No.33/2004.
NC: 2024:KHC:41688
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, this petition has
to succeed on the short ground that plaintiffs I.A.No.45
filed under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC was allowed partly vide
order dated 30.08.2017 and specifically the prayer for
leave to seek refund of the earnest money was rejected.
Challenge to the same in W.P.No.56505/2017 filed by the
respondent-plaintiffs was disposed off has having been
withdrawn on 25.10.2018, subsequently although with no
objections from the petitioners herein. Once the
application was rejected, the order of rejection would
operate as res judicata by virtue of decision of the Apex
Court in Y.B.PATIL AND OTHERS vs. Y.L.PATIL, AIR
1977 SC 392 wherein it is observed that the principle of
res judicata applies also as between two stages of the
same litigation, to the extent, that where a court (whether
trial court or a higher court) has, at an earlier stage of the
suit, decided the matter one way, the parties, cannot be
allowed to reagitate the same matter at a subsequent
stage of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:41688
3. The vehement submission of learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent-plaintiffs that the earlier
application i.e., I.A.No.45 was filed only under the
provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and that the
subsequent application i.e., I.A.No.47 is filed under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC read with section 22 of the Specific
Relief Act and therefore, res judicata is not attracted, is
difficult to countenance. His reliance on the decision in
ARJUN SINGH vs. MOHINDRA KUMAR, AIR 1964 SCR 5,
page 946, does not come to the rescue of respondents.
Merely because a different provision of law is quoted in the
subsequent application, the doctrine of res judicata does
not stand excluded, more particularly when the provisions
of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC have been duplicated in the
subsequent application too.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed; a writ
of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order, plaintiffs'
application in I.A.No.47 filed in O.S.No.33/2004 is hereby
rejected. Since the suit is two decade old, learned trial
NC: 2024:KHC:41688
Judge is requested to try & dispose the same within an
outer limit of nine months and report compliance to the
Registrar General of this Court.
However, this order would not preclude the
respondent-plaintiffs from making the impugned order
passed on I.A.No.45 a ground in the event they suffer an
adverse judgment & decree, as provided under Order XLIII
Rule 1A of amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
cbc
