1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MSA NO.200004/2021 (LA)
BETWEEN:
M/S FORTUNE FIVE HYDEL
PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
SITE OFFICE H.NO.1874, WARD NO.13,
INGALESHWAR ROAD, B BAGEWADI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586203.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI D P AMBEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
01. RAMESH S/O RREVANASIDDAPPA HITNALLI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O INGALESHWAR, TQ. B.BAGEWADI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586203.
02. SHARIF
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AREA MANAGER &
PROJECT ENGINEER
R/O MADAR BUILDING, OPP. BASAVESHWAR ARTS
& COMMERCE COLLEGE
NEAR VIMOCHANA HOTEL
VIJAYAPURA ROAD
B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586203.
03. MUSTAFA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SKILLED WORKER
R/O MADAR BUILDING, OPP. BASAVESHWAR ARTS
& COMMERCE COLLEGE
2
NEAR VIMOCHANA HOTEL
VIJAYAPURA ROAD
B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586203. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV. FOR R.1,
VO DATED 11.3.2022 NOTICE AGAINST R.2 & 3
IS DISPENSED WITH)
This Appeal is filed under Section 104 read with Order 43
RUle 1(u) CPC against the judgment and decree dated
28.01.2020 passed in R.A.No.35/2016 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavanabagewadi, allowing and
setting-aside the judgment an ddecree dated 05.08.2016
passed in O.S.No.225/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Basavana bagewadi remanding the matter to the trial
Court for fresh trial and disposal accordance to law.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
The appellant in this case has questioned the order
dated 28.01.2020 passed in R.A.35/2016 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi. In
terms of the impugned order, the appellate judge has set-
aside the order passed by the trial Court which was passed
on an application I.A. VIII, under Order VII Rule 11(d)
CPC. In terms of the said order passed on the said
application, the trial Judge held that the suit is not
maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section
3
145 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The appellate Court
after considering the provision of Section 145 of Indian
Electricity Act has come to the conclusion Section 145 is
not a bar to institute a suit for injunction before the Civil
Judge. The bar is only in respect of matters covered
under Sections 125 and 126 of the Indian Electricity Act.
While allowing the said appeal, learned appellate Judge
has also referred to Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act
and has given a finding in para.28 to the effect that bar in
Section 20A is also not applicable.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the
defence under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act was
not raised in an application under Order VII Rule 11d CPC
and that being the position, the appellate court could not
have held that the suit is maintainable despite the bar
contained under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act.
4
3. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of
Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act is to be adjudicated
by the trial Court after recording evidence. Thus, without
expressing any opinion on the implication of Section 20A of
the Specific Relief Act on the suit, the observations made
in paragraph 28 of the impugned order is set-aside.
However, the remaining portion of the order is sustained
and the trial Court shall decide the suit in accordance with
law without being influenced by any observations made in
respect of the contentions under Section 20A of the
Specific Relief Act.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
brn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.