TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580002 v. DIST: HAVERI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
made out, the petition stands dismissed at the stage
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151; O. XXIII r. 1
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
SRI. LAVANAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA HUTTANAGOUDAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-591126. (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. GIRIJA W/O. SHRIKANTAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O. YALIWAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580002. …PETITIONER ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
SRI. VEERESH S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.
SRI. KARABASAPPA S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.
SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ARALIKATTI, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:278 WP No. 108043 of 2024 AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.
SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SHANKRAPPA SAVANUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOTANAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581193, DIST: HAVERI.
SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA MANNANGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YALVATTI, TQ: HANGAL-581012, DIST: HAVERI.
SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. PARAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.
MANOJ S/O. PARAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.
MANJULA D/O. PARAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KARADAGI, TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN RA NO.32/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, AT HAVERI IN IA NO.1, U/ORD.23 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:278 WP No. 108043 of 2024 RULE 1 R/W SEC.151 CPC DATED 14.11.2024 AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: a) b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in RA No.32/2024 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, at Haveri in IA No.1, U/Ord.23 Rule 1 R/W Sec.151 CPC dated 14.11.2024 at Annexure-G and consequently allow the IA. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. A suit for declaration and injunction is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.13/2019, the said suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed regular appeal in R.A.No.32/2024. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, which came to be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:278 WP No. 108043 of 2024 numbered as I.A.No.I seeking permission withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.11.2024. Challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were several facts which have been brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial Court, which are not pleaded in the plaint nor taken up subsequently and as such, the rights of the petitioner who is the purchaser of the property is adversely affected and in that background, liberty is sought for. He submits that the liberty sought for was required to be granted in order to enable the petitioner to safeguard the rights of the property purchased by the petitioner.
4. Having perused the documents which have been filed, the decree passed in the aforesaid suit and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:278 WP No. 108043 of 2024 application as also the impugned order, it is categorically seen that the liberty, which has been sought for is mainly on the ground that the counsel appearing for the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, had not averred several facts, which according to the petitioner had been brought to his knowledge.
5. The said non-pleading is not a formal defect which would come into the purview of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are sufficient reasons made out allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit was the part of the claim in order to grant liberty to file a suit on the very same cause of action.
6. The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff being that certain appointments have not been made in the plaintiff can always be remedy by the petitioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:278 WP No. 108043 of 2024 seeking for amendment of the pleadings and the matter can be proceeded there from.
Operative part
7. The non pleading will not amount to a formal defect as contemplated under Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the CPC. In that view of the matter, the trial Court having considered all these aspects in a proper perspective manner, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK 1 to 3 AM 4 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: made out, the petition stands dismissed at the stage
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII r. 1.
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.