Case Law Details
Tierra Farm Assets Company Private Limited Vs Dr. Kankere Thimmappa Gowda Mahesh (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court considered two writ petitions seeking issuance of writs of certiorari to quash orders passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in civil suits and related execution proceedings. The petitioners contended that the proceedings, including orders dated 07.04.2022 and 05.09.2023 passed on applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), were barred after the imposition of a moratorium and sought to set aside the trial court orders and execution proceedings.
The High Court held that writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Trial Court through issuance of a writ of certiorari were not maintainable. It observed that the petitioners had appropriate remedies available under the CPC if they were aggrieved by the Trial Court’s orders. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedies, the Court disposed of the writ petitions.
The Court also recorded the submission of the respondent’s counsel withdrawing all personal allegations made in the statement of objections against the petitioners’ counsel, and treated those allegations as withdrawn.
Further, the High Court granted the petitioners the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In view of the disposal of the main writ petitions, all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner in W.P.No.25265/2024 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, setting aside all orders passed by the learned VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11), in O.S.No.2342/2020 as being barred by law after the imposition of moratorium on 07.04.2022, including the final order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-A);
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, setting aside the Execution Petition and all orders passed in Ex.P.No.121/2024 including the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the learned VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11) (Annexure-B); and
iii) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Petitioner in W.P.No.25264/2024 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, setting aside the entire proceedings in O.S.No.2347/2020 along with the final order dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11), as being barred by law (Annexure-A);
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, setting aside the Execution Petition and all orders passed in Ex.P.No.122/2024 including the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the learned VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11) (Annexure-B); and
iii) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. What is essentially challenged in both these petitions are the orders dated 07.04.2022 and 05.09.2023 passed in OS No.2342/2020 and O.S.No.2347/2020 by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), on an application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short).
4. Writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court and seeking for quashing of the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari are not maintainable. The petitioner could well avail of the remedies available under the Civil Procedure Code in respect of the order if at all aggrieved by the same.
5. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to do so, the petitions stand disposed of.
6. Before parting with the above matters, there is one other incidental issue which is arising, which is of considerable importance. The respondent has made certain allegations in the statement of objections against the counsel who appears for the petitioner. The counsel for respondent now withdraws all the personal allegations which have been made against the counsel for the petitioner.
7. Hence, placing the said submission on record, the allegations made against the counsel for the petitioner stands withdrawn.
8. Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act is provided to the petitioner.
9. In view of disposal of main petitions, pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
Author Bio
