SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top