1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.34721 OF 2015(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ABDUL MAJEED

S/O SRI DAWOOD,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

R/AT NEAR JOY COFFEE CURING,

UPPALLI,

CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

CHIKMAGALUR-577 101

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED: PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CIVIL

JUDGE, JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 318/2015

FOUND AT ANNEXURE-D ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH

COSTS AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'

GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order

dated 25.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.318/2015 on the file of

the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Chikmagalur, whereby the trial Court had rejected I.A.No.I

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 80(2) of CPC

read with Section 284(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities

Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently, directed

return of the plaint to re-present the same after compliance

with Section 80 of CPC.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the

material on record.

3.

The material on record indicates that the

petitioner-plaintiff

instituted

the

aforesaid

suit

in

O.S.No.318/2015 for permanent injunction and for other

reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable property.

Having regard to the fact that the said suit was instituted

against the respondent before the City Civil Court,

Chikmagalur, the petitioner filed an application under

3

Section 284(2) of the Act seeking dispensation of notice to

the respondent and for permission to institute the suit. By

the impugned order dated 25.07.2015, the trial Court

rejected the said application and consequently, directed

return of the plaint, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is

before this Court by way of the present petition.

4.

Before adverting to the contentions urged by

the learned counsel for the parties and impugned order, it is

relevant to extract Section 284 of the Act, which reads as

under:

“284. Previous notice for suits, etc

(1)

No suit shall be instituted against any

municipal council, officer, servant or any person

acting under the order or direction of such

municipal council, officer or servant in respect

of any act done or purporting to have been

done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or

bye-law made thereunder until the expiration of

sixty days next after notice in writing, stating the

cause of action, the nature of the relief sought,

the amount of compensation claimed, the name

and place of residence of the intending plaintiff

and the relief which he claims, has been in the

case of a municipal council delivered or left at

4

its office, and in the case of such officer,

servant, or person, delivered to him or left at his

office or place of residence and unless the

plaint contains a statement that such notice has

been so delivered or left.

(2)

Nothing in this section shall be deemed

to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed

is an injunction of which the object would be

defeated by the giving of the notice or the

postponement of the institution of the suit.”

5.

A perusal of Clause 2 of Section 284 will

clearly indicate that the mandatory notice envisaged in

Section 284(1) would not apply to a suit for permanent

injunction if the relief claimed is permanent injunction and

the very object of filing will be defeated if giving of notice or

institution of the suit is postponed after issuance of notice.

In other words, a suit for permanent injunction along with

an application for dispensation of noti