Back
THE T T L TRUST – Appellant
Versus
MYSORE & CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – Respondent
WP 11446/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.11446 OF 2016 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE T.T.L. TRUST,
NO.2899/2, 1ST MAIN,
SARASWATIPURAM,
MYSORE 3 570 009.
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
SRI.H.N.ASWATHANARAYANA,
S/O H.NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.DAYANAND S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MYSORE & CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
UPPARA SANGHA,
WITH REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.535, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
MYSORE 3 570 023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY,
SRI.SOMASHEKAR K.
2.
THE MYSORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (MUDA),
J.L.BHAI ROAD,
MYSORE 3 570 005.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
3.
THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE.
MYSORE 3 570 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER
DATED
09.02.2016
PASSED
ON
IA
NO.II
IN
O.S.NO.423/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MYSORE AS PER ANNEXURE 3 A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1.
The
petitioner
who
is
defendant
No.1
in
O.S.No.423/2014 which has been filed before the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru is before this
Court aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2016
allowing I.A.No.2/2002 filed therein under Order
XXIII Rule 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short 8of CPC9).
2.
The suit in O.S.No.423/2014 has been filed by
respondent No.1 herein seeking for the relief of
declaration of title and possession as also a
declaration that the plaintiff therein is custodian of
3
the suit schedule property, and for a further relief
of a declaration that the plan issued by respondent
Nos.2 and 3 herein is ultra vires and illegal with a
direction to respondent No.2 herein to demolish the
construction put up as also for consequential
injunction.
3.
The written statement came to be filed in the suit
by the petitioner and respondent No.1 herein,
wherein it is contended that the very frame of the
suit was not in accordance with Order XXXI Rule 1
of CPC; the representation made on behalf of the
petitioner is in accordance with the Section 15 of
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and also
on account of the fact that the mandatory notice in
terms of Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 has not been issued to
respondent No.3 herein and the mandatory notice
in terms of Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short 8the
4
KUDA Act9) has not been issued to respondent No.2
herein. Much subsequently, it is contended that an
application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC
came to be filed and numbered as I.A.No.II seeking
for withdrawal of the said suit with liberty to
institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter.
4.
Upon hearing the said matter, the trial Court vide
order dated 09.02.2016 was pleased to allow the
said application and permit respondent No.1 herein
to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit,
aggrieved by which the petitioner/defendant No.1
before this Court.
5.
Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
order passed by the trial Court suffers from various
legal infirmities inasmuch as defendant No.1 would
have succeeded in the suit by getting the suit
dismissed on account of the defects which had been
pointed out that it is only to obviate such an
5
eventuality that the application under Order XXIII
Rule 1(3) of CPC has been filed by the plaintiff. The
decision referred to and relied upon by defendant
No
