High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 KAR CK 0194

Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.V. Nagarathna, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 44233-44244 of 2011 (CS-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 349 words

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

1.

These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 10.11.2011, passed by the second respondent in Dispute Nos. 43/2011-12 and other connected disputes (Annexure-P).

2.

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner herein had filed an application seeking reference of certain documents to the handwriting expert for the purpose of proving the fact that they are the genuine members of the third respondent-house building co-operative society, The said application has been dismissed. Against the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

3.

I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos, 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

4.

Having regard to Section 107 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which provides for an efficacious, alternative remedy by way of a revision in respect of interlocutory orders passed in a dispute which has been raised u/s 70 of the said Act, in my view, this writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioners herein to avail the alternative remedy, if so advised.

5.

At this stage, learned senior counsel submits that he has instructions from his advocate on record to the effect that the petitioners would avail the alternative remedy u/s 107 of the Act, However, there is an apprehension that the second respondent would pass orders on an application filed by the third respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and in which event, the petitioners herein would be put to prejudice.

6.

Submission of the learned senior counsel is placed on record. The petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the second respondent seeking deferment of the consideration of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. If such an application is filed by the petitioners herein, the same to be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law.

7.

Addl. Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks from today.