Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2404 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R)
SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 001.
(REP. BY ITS PRESIDENTS)
SRI. VALMIKIPRASANNANDA SWAMIJI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HONORABLE PRESIDENT, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
2. HONORABLE SRI. SATISH L. JARKIHOLLI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MINISTER, TRUSTEE, SRI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), Digitally signed SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, by VANDANA S Location: RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, HIGH COU RT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA R/O. HILL GARDEN, NEAR LAYOUT, GOKAK, BELGAUM DISTRICT - 590 001.
3. SRI. T. OBALAPPA S/O. SANNA OBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT, MANAGING TRUSTEE, R/O. 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, J.C. BADAVANE, HARIHARA - 577 601.
4. DR. G. RANGAIAHA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
R/O. NO. 506, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, RMV LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 094.
5. DR. K. R. PATIL S/O. RAMANAGOWDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
R/O SRIGANDHA, SHANTHINAGAR, MISSION COMPOUND, NEAR LAKSHMI TALKIES, DHARWAD - 580 001.
6. SRI. R. S. SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, R/O. NO. 566, COLLEGE ROAD, SRI. RAMA NIVASA, NEW LAYOUT, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
7. DR. B. R. VALMIKI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, R/O. NO. D-1 RAMAKUTEERA, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
8. SRI. B. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
R/O. NO. 151/1, HONDADA ROAD, TALAWAR PETE, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
9. SRI. M. ANNAPPA S/O. MUDDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, MYSORE, R/O. DOOR NO. 36A, KATHARAJUURS ROAD, SHARADADEVINAGAR, MYSORE - 570 001.
10. SRI. ARTHIKOTEVEERENDRASIMHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 001
11. SRI. SHANTHKUMAR SURPURA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
12. SRI. VALENAHALLI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
13. SRI. N. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
14. SRI. MURALI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
15. SRI. RAMANNAKALANNANAVAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI, BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
16. SRI. NANDAKUMAR MALI PATIL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, KALBURGI -581 501.
17. SRI. NATARAJAPPA HALAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST (R), SRI. VALAMIKI MAHASABA, RAJANAHALLI,BAGALKOTE, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 001.
18. SRI. D. B. BASAVRAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST RAJANAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA, RAJANAHALLI,HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 001.
19. SRI. SANNAVERAPPA HALEPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARUSHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, GADAG, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001
20. SRI. MALAPPA KAULAGI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARUSHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, VIJAYPURA, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
21. SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, CHAMARAJNAGAR, RAJANAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
22. SMT. SHANTHALA RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI,TUMKUR, RAJANAHALLI,HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
23. SRI. GANGADHRAPPA NAYAKA MANVI VIDHANASABHA KHESTRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARUSHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, MANVI, RAJANAHALLI,HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
24. SRI. K. B. MANJUNATH S/O. KENCHAPPA. D, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, R/O. HALLADA KERI, HARIHARA - 577 601.
25. SRI. JAMBAIAHA NAYAK. B. K.
S/O. SANAKKI HULUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI,R/O. 34TH WARD, UKKADAKERI, HOSPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT - 560 040.
26. DR. THEJESWINI KATTIMANI D/O. VENKATESHAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, TRUSTEE, SRI. MAHARISHI VALMIKI GURUPEETA TRUST, RAJANAHALLI, PROFESSOR, VALMIKI BANDU MASA PATRIKE OFFICE, KATTIMANI COMPOUND, SAPTHAPURA,12TH CROSS, DHARWAD - 580 001.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GUMMANUR K. M. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O. LATE MUSHTARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O. JYOTHI NIVASA, LIG-1637, A BLOCK, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, K.H.B. COLONY, KUNDAVAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 2. SRI. SUBASH. S. H.
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA. S. B., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 1656/D, 6TH MAIN,K BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 001.
3. SRI. PRASHANTH RAMAPPA DALWAI S/O. RAMAPPA DALWAI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KANNAMUCHNALA VILLAGE, CHIBOLESHWARA TALUK, BIJAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101. 4. SRI ANJANEYA HUBALLI S/O. RAMAPPA HUBBALI KOTEKAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. PANAMAKALLU, RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 584 101.
5. SRI. THAYAPPA NAYAKA S/O. BHEEMAIAHA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MANSALPURA VILLAGE, RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 584 101.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.11.2023 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS NO.260/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNX-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order dated
23.11.2023 passed in Misc.No.260/2023 by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) whereby the issue regarding maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners was answered against the petitioners, by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the respondents instituted the aforesaid proceedings Misc.No.260/2023 invoking Section 92 CPC and sought for several reliefs in relation to the 1st petitioner – Trust. The 1st respondent is a practicing advocate, who entered appearance not only on behalf of himself but also on behalf of the respondents herein, who were the remaining petitioners in the petition before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein raised objections regarding maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents on the ground that the 1st respondent herein who was the 1st petitioner in Misc.No.260/2023 was not entitled to file / prosecute the petition on behalf of himself as well as the remaining petitioners before the Trial Court in the light of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. S. Nagabhushana Rao and others – Civil Appeal 7691- 94/2022 dated 19.10.2022. It was therefore contended that the petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 4. Apart from opposing the said contention urged by the petitioners herein, the 1st respondent filed a memo to the effect that he had given ‘no objection’ to the remaining respondents, who were the remaining petitioners before the Trial Court and stated that they had engaged the services of one more counsel by filing vakalath and that the 1st respondent would appear as a party-in- person. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court took note of the fact that the 1st respondent had given ‘no objection’ to the remaining respondents, who had appeared through a different counsel and the mistakes that had occurred at the time of institution of the petition should be rectified instead of dismissing the petition and consequently, answered the issue regarding maintainability of the petition against the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has taken into account the material on record which indicated that though initially the petition in Misc.260/2023 was filed by the 1st respondent for himself as well as the counsel for the remaining respondents, all of whom were the petitioners before the Trial Court, in view of the objections raised by the petitioners herein, the 1st respondent had recused himself from continuing to appear on behalf of the remaining respondents and had given ‘no objection’ to them pursuant to which they had also engaged the services of a different counsel who had entered appearance on their behalf. Accordingly, the Trial Court noticed that the said initial defect stood cured by the subsequent event of the 1st respondent giving ‘no objection’ to the remaining respondents, who had engaged the services of a different counsel and instead of dismissing the petition, initial mistakes / defects could be rectified by issuing necessary directions in this regard and as such, it could not be said that the petition was not maintainable. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Trial Court held as under:
“ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THIS PETITION
1. This petition is filed U/S.92 CPC seeking permission to the petitioners to institute a suit against the respondents in respect of the Trust matter.
2. There are 10 petitioners and 29 respondents. Along with this petition the petitioners have also filed an application i.e., I.A.No.1 U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad-interim order of mandatory
