BY SRI. H v. BHANUPRAKASH
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18755 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE C.M. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. ASHARANI, D/O. LATE C.M. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. ANUSHA, D/O. LATE C.M. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT.NO.42, RBI POST, OLD KESARE, NEAR NAIDU NAGARA, MYSORE – 570 007.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. D. KAVITHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. SHIVANNA, S/O. CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT. HOLALU VILLAGE, DUBBA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571 402. 2. ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, RMP (RARE MATERIAL PROJECT), BARC, YELWALA, MYSORE-571 130. 3. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, RMP (RARE MATERIAL PROJECT), …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 BARC, YELWALA, MYSORE-571 130. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIWANS ROAD, MYSORE-570 004. 5. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BANNIMANTAP OPPOSITE, MYSURU-570 015. (BY SRI. H. V. BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H. JAYAKAR SHETTY CGC FOR R2 AND 3; SRI. K.P.M VARGHESE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND 5.) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO DEPOSIT THE DECRETAL AMOUNT PASSED IN MIS CASE NO.02/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Misc.No.02/2016 dated 15.12.2017 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. It is the case that respondent No.1 herein had filed O.S.No.3/2011 for recovery of money, the petitioners herein - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 3 were set exparte and the suit was decreed on 31.07.2014. Thereafter, Misc.No.02/2016 was filed before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya. The Trial Court, by order impugned had allowed the petition and directed to deposit the decretal amount as per the directions in O.S.No.03/2011 with interest on or before 12.01.2018. Then the office was directed to place the records in Misc.No.19/2014 before the Court. 3. While passing such an order the Trial Court had observed that it is not a case where the petitioners are rustic villagers. The petitioners are educated and employed as well. It is clear from the cross examination of PW1 that she was disinterested in gathering information regarding the status of the case. Nothing much appears to have been elicited through the witness PW1. The Trial Court further observed that however an opportunity could be given at the same time the interest of respondent No.1 could as well be safeguarded. The petition could be allowed on terms as the petitioners themselves have sought for and accordingly, passed the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a widow and she was not aware of the pending proceedings as such she could not represent before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s Trois Corporation HK Ltd. Vs. M/s National Ventures Pvt. Ltd. arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4012-4013 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “The order of the High Court directing a deposit of 75% of the suit claim as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the exparte decree was unwarranted. The ends of justice would have been met if an order of costs was imposed on the appellant as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the exparte decree. Imposing a requirement of a deposit of 75% of the suit claim is disproportionate and would have to be set aside.” Relying on this judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the condition imposed by the Trial Court in directing the petitioners to deposit the decretal amount - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 is a onerous condition and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the same on some costs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that earlier, the present writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and when the matter was dismissed for non- prosecution before this Court, he has given up the entire file to respondent No.1. Thereafter, a petition for restoration was filed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. On 14.02.2024, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition for non- prosecution. Then, I.A.No.1/2024 was filed to recall the same order. That was recalled by order dated 14.10.2024. The suit was filed in the year 2011 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were set exparte in the year 2013. I.A. was filed in the year 2014 and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and exercising the discretion, the Trial Court had imposed the condition that the decretal amount has to be deposited. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed. Even the writ petition was also dismissed for non prosecution. The plaintiff, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1789 WP No. 18755 of 2018 who had filed the suit in the year 2011 even till now the proceedings could not be concluded and he is not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The consistent conduct of the defendants/petitioners shows that there are no bonafides on the part of the defendants in pursuing the litigation at every step before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court as well as before this Court. The judgment that is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners stated supra is in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. This Court is of the view that the order that is passed by the Trial Court is a reasoned order. Considering the facts of the case and further looking at the manner in which the matter is pursued by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2