: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS. W.P. No /2012 (GM-CPC)

Transcription

1 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS BETWEEN: W.P. No /2012 (GM-CPC) VYSHNAVI CHETANA P U COLLEGE (CHETANA EDUCATIONAL TRUST) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON V VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O V RAGHAVENDRAPRASAD AGE: 52 YEARS, NEAR BYPASS HADADI ROAD DAVANGERE.... PETITIONER (BY SRI.: P H PAWAR, ADV.) AND MAHANTESH M KHODANPUR S/O MAHABALESHWARAPPA, KHODANPUR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.INDU ARCADE, VITHOBA GALLI, DURGAD BAIL HUBLI RESPONDENT (BY SRI.: PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV.)

2 : 2 : THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING OR BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DTD PASSED BY THE COURT PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBLI IN OS.NO.363/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW IA.NO.7, 12 AND 13 AND DISMISS IA.NO.14 IN TOTO AS PRAYED FOR TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. In this order for convenience the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 2. Plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property as a tenant under the defendant. Since the defendant tried to disposes the plaintiffs, they filed a suit in OS No.363/2012 for decree of permanent injunction. The defendant entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed a written statement interalia denying the alleged attempt to dispossess and contended that the plaintiffs are in arrears of rent. At that stage, the plaintiff filed IA No.7 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead four

3 : 3 : persons as additional defendants. IA No.-13 is filed for a direction to the defendant to refund the deposit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- or depositing the same before the Court. IA No.12 is filed to keep the amount deposited by the plaintiff, under fixed deposit in any nationalised Bank. IA No.14 is filed by the defendant for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the plaintiff. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff and allowed the applications filed by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 3. Heard the arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant in the plaint schedule property. Prayer in the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. To resolve this controversy relating to the permanent injunction between the plaintiff and the defendant, the presence of proposed defendants is not necessary. The proposed defendants are Government of

4 : 4 : Karnataka, The Commissioner, HDMC, Hubli, The Director of PU Board, Bangalore, and M/S. Medha Educational Trust, Hubli. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the proposed defendants tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting IA 7 is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. 5. Admittedly, the plaintiff at the commencement of tenancy paid advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant. This amount of deposit is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed between the parties. Therefore, in a suit for bare injunction, the defendant cannot be directed either to refund this advance money or to deposit the same before the Trial Court. Again impugned order passed by the Trial Court on IA No.13 is in accordance with law. 6. IA No.12 is filed by the plaintiff, to keep the amounts deposited by them in the Court in a fixed deposit

5 : 5 : till the termination of proceedings. IA No.14 is filed by the defendant for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the plaintiff. The amount deposited by the plaintiff are the monthly rents payable by them to the defendants. It is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to pay the rents as long as they are in occupation of plaint schedule property. The defendant is entitled to receive monthly rents from the plaintiff. If the monthly rents are deposited by the plaintiff before the Court, then defendants are entitled to withdraw the same. If there is any controversy with regard to the advance amount paid by the plaintiff and if it is to be refunded the same has to be worked out in accordance with law in a separate proceedings. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial Court on IA Nos.12 and 14. For reasons stated above, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Vmb SD/- JUDGE