SRI MANGALCHAND S JAIN v. SRI P JAGADEESH KUMAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ Petition is dismissed in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. On hearing the learned counsels and examining the impugned order I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this Petition and the same requires to be rejected. The issue sought to be raised in the present case has since been covered…
Judgment
SRI MANGALCHAND S JAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI SUMERMAL K JAIN R/AT 39/1, 1ST FLOOR, GEETHA MANSION MAMULPET, BANGALORE – 560 053. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI V PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND : 1 SRI P JAGADEESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE P S PADMANABHAIAH PROP: M/S BHARATH GLASS & CROCKERIES NO.716, CHICKPET, OTC ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 053. 2 3 4 5 6 2 SRI SUMERMAL K JAIN AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE SHREE KANMALJI M/S HITENDRA SALES CORPORATION 39, 2ND FLOOR, GEETHA MANSION, BELLI BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET BANGALORE – 560 053. SRI THRILOKCHAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI CHAGRAJJI SRI AMITH BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SRI TRILOK CHAND RESPONDENT 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.77, JINESHWAR APARTMENT DOOR NO.203, K R ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004 SRI NARAPTHRAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SRI CHAGRAJJ SMT PUSHPADEVI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI NARPATH RAJ RESPONDENT 5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.15, CHENRAYA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET, GANIGARPET, BANGALORE – 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS 3 (BY SRI M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE SMALL CAUSES COURT, MAYO HALL UNIT, SCCH-21, BANGALORE IN SC.NO.15299/11 BY ALLOWING THE WP. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The first plaintiff filed O.S.No.17133/2006, subsequently re-numbered as S.C.No.15299/2011 seeking ejectment of the defendants. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner-defendant filed an application under 50 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 to direct to the plaintiffs to get their rights adjudicated in a properly instituted House Rent Control proceedings. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application. Hence, the present Petition. 4
The learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the Judgment in the case of ABDUL WAJJID vs. A.S.ONKARAPPA reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 contends that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. He therefore pleads that his application be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-second plaintiff disputes the claim. He contends that there is no question of entertaining this Petition under any circumstances. That the trial Court should have dismissed the application in limini. He places reliance on the Order dated 11-4-2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6487/2011 and connected Writ Petition No.6488/2011. In the said Petitions the very same issue was considered by the learned Single Judge. The plea is that the said writ petitions were filed by 5 the very same petitioner herein questioning the earlier order arising out of the same proceedings in which the contention was negatived. Under these circumstances the Petition be rejected.
Operative part
On hearing the learned counsels and examining the impugned order I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this Petition and the same requires to be rejected. The issue sought to be raised in the present case has since been covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in the aforementioned Petitions. It is the very same petitioner who challenged the order in the Writ Petitions. The same does not even find a place in the application nor is it brought to the notice of the Court by him. It is only the respondent who has placed this Judgment before this Court. The petitioner has attempted to re-agitate the very issue that has since been concluded, I’am of the considered view 6 that the attempt of the petitioner is deliberate. His intention is to mislead the Court and nothing else. He has not even stated with regard to the said Writ Petitions in his entire Writ Petition. Under these circumstances, on this ground not only should the Petition be rejected, I deem it appropriate to impose costs. In view of the conduct of the petitioner and the manner in which he has conducted himself, it is just and proper to impose costs of Rs.15,000/-. It is to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The said amount shall be paid with the Registry of this Court. The trial Court to ensure compliance. Writ Petition is dismissed in the above terms. Sd/- JUDGE RSK/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is dismissed in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.