High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 06 KAR CK 0073

Sri Asgar January, Sri Mouazzam Jan Represented By P.A. Holder, Sri Asgar Jan and Sri. Mukkaram Jan vs M/s. Poshak Clothings and Sri. Puttanna Mandal Since Deceased By Lr''s: Thimmaiah Mandal and Muniyanna Mandal

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 June 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 16159 of 2012

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

6 paragraphs · 359 words

Ravi Malimath

1.

Defendants 2 to 5 filed an application u/s 151 of CPC, which reads as fellows:

For the reasons stated in the accompanyin.q affidavit; the defendants 2 to 4 herein pray that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to dismiss the aforesaid suit on the ground that in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16516/2004 has specifically pleaded in Para 19 of his plaint that the plaintiff Rs. is withdrawing this suit O.S. No. 15702/2004 filed by him after having filed the suit bearing O.S. No. 16516/2004 seeking a declaratory relief that he is a sub-tenant in the suit schedule property and that he is entitled to continue in the suit schedule property till March 2020 and for a consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with hi z peaceful. possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in the interest of justice and equity.

The Trial Court while considering the same dismissed the :laid application..

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16516/2004 seeking a declaratory relief in respect of the suit schedule property has subsequently contended that after filing of that suit intends to withdraw the earlier suit in O.S. 15702/2004 filed by him.

3.

Therefore, having made the specific pleading, he is required to follow the same. He has failed to withdraw the said suit. I''am unable to accept the contentions advanced. When a party makes a submission before the Court or contends that he will perform a particular act and the said act is riot performed. There is an appropriate remedy available to enforce the same. Enforcement of an undertaking cannot be done in the present form which is sought for by the defendants. To seek the Court''s intervention to dismiss the said suit, purely based on the undertaking given by the plaintiff which beyond the purview of this Court. The acts of the defendant being non-compliance of his own statement cannot be agitated in the impugned application. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. Hence, the petition is dismissed.