Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea By Imposing ₹50k Cost; Explains Ingredients Of Section 10 CPC
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on a litigant saying that she remained quiescent for eighteen years.
The Court also explained the ingredients of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
A Writ Petition was filed against the Order by which the Application of the Petitioner under Section 10 CPC was rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “In view of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the aforesaid plea, without divulging the proceedings instituted by the petitioner before concerned Courts, all of which are narrated hereinabove, the petition deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner having remained quiescent for 18 years and having allowed the trial to mature to its final phase, cannot now seek refuge, that the law does not extend. The dismissal cannot be without mulcting the petitioner with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- to be payable by the petitioner, to the respondents/plaintiffs.”
The Bench noted that Section 10 of the CPC deals with stay of suits and it mandates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit, between the same parties on the same cause of action and the entire subject matter of suits being the same.
Senior Advocate Nalina Mayegowda appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocates Bipin Hegde and Angad Kamath appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was in possession of a property bearing Site No.52 in Sy.No.17/2A which was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.3/3B having purchased it in 1994. The Defendant No. 2 along with others were in peaceful possession of the property and this was allegedly interfered with by the Respondents i.e., the Plaintiffs in the original Suit. Owing to interference, the Petitioner filed a Suit in 2004, seeking to protect her possession. In 2006, the Respondent No. 1 along with others instituted a comprehensive Suit for declaration of Title. When things stood thus, the Petitioner instituted another Suit seeking to rectify the description of property in the Sale Deed. The rectification suit so filed was dismissed in 2009 and then an amendment application was filed to amend the plaint.
The Suit was amended from Sy.No.3/3B to Sy.No.17/2A and was again amended by incorporating the relief of declaration in 2010. All these took place in O.S.No.8729 of 2004. After about 20 years of institution of the suit, the Petitioner filed an Application under Section 10 CPC not in O.S.No.8729 of 2004, but in a comprehensive suit filed by the Respondents in O.S.No.9897 of 2006, contending that the two suits arise on the same cause of action and, therefore the proceedings in the later suit in O.S.No.9897 of 2006 be stayed. The concerned Court rejected the application and being aggrieved, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “18 years passed by, in such a setting to invoke Section 10 of the CPC is to cast a pebble, in a river, long past its source and notwithstanding the same, an application is filed under Section 10 of the CPC on 15-07-2024 seeking to arrest the suit in O.S.No.9897 of 2006 till conclusion of the suit in O.S.No.8729 of 2004.”
The Court further said that the two suits are founded upon different topographies – figuratively and literally. It further noted that the Delhi High Court holds that the basic purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, same subject matter and same relief.
“The precedential compass as held by the Apex Court and the judgments of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Delhi as noted supra, leads to an unmistakable inference that an application under Section 10 of the CPC can be considered, if three cumulative conditions are met – (1) the issues in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same; (2) the parties must be the same or litigating under the same title; and (3) the earlier suit must be in a competent Court”, it also enunciated.
The Court was of the view that this case nowhere meets the ingredients of Section 10 CPC, which would be identity identical to cause, parties, and subject.
“In the light of the suit being of the year 2006 and the fact that it is languishing in its 19th year, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality. … The concerned Court shall conclude O.S.No.9897 of 2006 within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner and upheld the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Kusuma Kumari v. Dr. Hafeezur Rahaman & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.28964 OF 2024 (GM – CPC)]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nalina Mayegowda and Advocate Anusha B. Reddy.
Respondents: Advocates Bipin Hegde, Angad Kamath, and K.B.S Manian.
