2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.17945 OF 2021 (GM –CPC)
BETWEEN:
JALADIGERE SRI CHIKKAMMA AND
DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
1.
SRI K KRISHNAPPA
SECRETARY
JALADIGERE SRI CHIKKAMMA AND
DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST
S/O LATE KARITHIMMAIAH
AGED 61 YEARS
2.
SRI PUTTASWAMY
JOINT SECRETARY
JALADIGERE SRI CHIKKAMMA AND
DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST
S/O THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH
AGED 78 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
W.P.No.17945/2021
2
AND:
1 .
SRI J K SHIVANNA
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572130
2 .
SRI B NARAYANASWAMY
S/O BYATAIAH
AGED 69 YEARS,
RESIDING T GURUKRUPA
NO.346, 11TH MAIN
SRINIVASANAGAR
BANGALORE-560050
3 .
SRI LAKSHMIKANTHA
S/O DASEGOWDA, MAJOR
4 .
G V KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O VENKATAIAH
AGED 59 YEARS
5 .
G SRINIVASA
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130
6 .
SYNDICATE BANK
NAGASANDRA
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
W.P.No.17945/2021
3
7 .
STATE BANK OF MYSURU
YEDIUR BRANCH
NO.6, SIDDALINGESHWARA NAGAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5;
SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R7 AND R8 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR
DIVISION
COURT
AT
KUNIGAL
DTD.
16.04.2021
IN
O.S.NO.11/2012 MARKED AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE I.A.
NO.57/2021 AND I.A.NO.58/2021 TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF
/ PETITIONER TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE DEFENDANT / R-6
AND 7.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioners before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs :
"i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by
the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Court at
Kunigal
dated
16.04.2021
in
O.S.No.11/2012
marked
at
Annexure-'A'
and
allow
the
I.A.No.57/2021 and I.A.No.58/2021 to permit the
plaintiff/petitioner
to
cross-examine
the
defendant/respondent Nos.6 and 7;
ii) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity."
4
The suit in O.S.No.11/2012 had been filed seeking
for the following reliefs:
"a) Restraining the defendant No.1 to 5 from operating
the bank account of the plaintiff trust in defendant
No.6 (Account No.20042200044190) and defendant
No.7 bank (Account No.54033290097).
ai) To declare that the resolution passed by the
defendants
No.1
to
4
from
11.06.2011
to
04.10.2015 and any acts and deeds committed
pursuant to the forgery of the signatures of the
plaintiffs No.1 to 3 is null and void and not binding
on these plaintiffs.
aii) Issue permanent injunction restraining defendant
No.1 to 4 not to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property
of the plaintiffs.
aiii) Issue permanent prohibitory injunction restraining
the defendants or anybody acting on behalf of
defendants or legal heirs or legal representatives not
to interfere with performing or poojas permanently in
the plaintiff No.1 temple, in the interest of justice
and equity.
b) Restraining the defendant No.6 and 7 bank from
allowing defendant No.1 to 5 to operate the bank
account of the plaintiff trust.
c) For Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Only) so far drawn by
defendant No.1, 2, 4 and 5.
d) Grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice and equity."
3.
In the said suit, defendant Nos.6 and 7, who are
the banks, though entered appearance through
5
counsel, did not lead any evidence and had
indicated that they have no evidence in the matter.
4.
Since there were certain reliefs that were sought for
as regards the banks and or the operation of the
bank accounts, an application in I.A.No.57/2021
was filed seeking for re-opening of the case and
I.A.No.58/2021 was filed to summon the managers
of defendant Nos.6 and 7, to be cross-examined by
the petitioners who were the plaintiffs in the said
suit as also for production of certain documents.
5.
The said applications came to be dismissed by the
trial Court on the ground that the burden of proof
proving the allegation of the plaint is that of the
plaintiffs and defendant Nos.6 and 7 cannot be
compelled to lead evidence. More so, when the
plaintiffs have not filed any application to lead the
evidence of defendant Nos.6 and 7 as the further
evidence of the plaintiffs., it is aggrieved by the
same that the petitioners are before this Court.
6
6.
Sri.B.N.Shivanna,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners would submit that in the plaint filed
various allegations which have been made against
defendant Nos.6 and 7, the operations of the bank
accounts in defendant Nos.6 and 7 by defendant
Nos.1 to 5, the fraudulent withdrawal of money
from the said bank accounts as also as regards
criminal proceedings which had also been filed. He
submits that one of the issues which has been
framed is as to whether the plaintiffs prove that the
defendants have no authority to operate any of the
bank accounts and another issue is relating to the
illegal drawing of Rs.8 Lakhs by defendant No.4 can
return to defendant Nos.6 and 7.
7.
In such a situation, he submits that the Court ought
to have issued summons to defendant Nos.6 and 7
to produce the documents as also to lead the
evidence
and
the
choice
of
producing
the
documents or to lead the evidence ought to have
7
been left to defendant Nos.6 and 7. The trial Court
ought not to have foreclosed this matter by holding
that there could be no compellation on defendant
Nos.6 and 7 from lead