AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—Petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 19.6.2012 passed in Misc. No. 789/1995 on the file of VI Addl. City Civil Judge, at Bangalore City, at Annexure-E, and issue a writ of mandamus to the trial Court to amend the order and recovery certificate dated 28.9.2001 made in the above-said Miscellaneous case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, filed an application u/s 31(1)(a)(a) of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 seeking direction to the respondents to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 94,53,000/-, which was due as on 30.6.1993 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 1.7.1993 till date of payment and it was registered in Misc. 789/1995 on the file of City Civil Court at Bangalore.
Respondent No. 1 is Private Limited Company. During the pendency of the Petition before the trial Court and at the stage of service of notice and in the month of June 1998, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 died on 22.6.1996. Petitioner/Corporation filed an application under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC on 29.8.1998 in the above-said Miscellaneous Case seeking permission to bring LRs., of the deceased respondent No. 2-Veerashetty Kushnoor. Legal representatives are wife, two sons and daughters. In spite of service of notice on the LRs., they have not entered appearance. Trial Court did not dispose off the application, but has allowed the Miscellaneous case, holding that the petitioner/Corporation is entitled to recover Rs. 180.77 lakhs from all the respondents together with interest at 15% per annum from 1.6.2001, etc. Since the LR. Application was not disposed off, names of LRs., of respondent No. 2 not shown in the cause title as well as the certificate. Therefore, the petitioner/Corporation filed an application under Sections 152 and 153 of CPC praying the trial Court to amend the cause title of the final order dated 28.9.2001 made in the Misc. 789/1995 and also the certificate for recovery of amount, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the same by passing the impugned order at Annexure-E. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2(a) to (e) submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the L. R application was barred by time.
Secured the records in Misc. No. 789/1995 from the City Civil Court.
I have Perused the entire records.
On 29.8.1998 the petitioner/Corporation filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC seeking permission to bring LRs., of respondent No. 2. The application was annexed with affidavit of Assistant General Manager of the petitioner/Corporation. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner/Corporation came to know about the death of respondent No. 2 in the month of June 1998. Taking into consideration the date of knowledge as to death of respondent No. 2, L R application was filed in time. Therefore, there was no abatement.
In spite of service of notice on the LRs., of respondent No. 2 in the Miscellaneous case, they did not oppose the L R application. The Court below lost sight of the application, but disposed off the main petition. At the stage of hearing the application filed by the petitioner filed under Sections 152 and 153 of CPC, the trial Court could have taken note of the application and disposed off, in accordance with law.
It is pertinent to mention that in the event of allowing the L R application and the cause title is amended by bringing LRs., of respondent No. 2, object of the petitioner will be achieved. Consequently, the trial Court has to correct the cause title of the order dated 28.9.2001 and recovery certificate by mentioning the names of LRs., of respondent No. 2. Application (I.A-V) filed under Sections 152 and 153 of CPC was not maintainable as there was no such error required to be corrected. It is the duty of the trial Court to dispose off the L.R. Application atleast when the petitioner filed I.A-V for correction of the order and recovery certificate. It is a fit case to direct the trial Court to consider the L.R application filed by the petitioner under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC on 29.8.1998 in Misc. 789/1995 and dispose off the same, in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following order:
Writ Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to consider the L R application dated 29.8.1998 filed by the petitioner/Corporation under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, after affording an opportunity of filing objection and hearing the petitioner and the proposed LRs., of respondent No. 2. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.8.2013, without notice and the trial Court is directed to dispose off the LR. application, in accordance with law.