BASAVARAJ vs VYAWASAYA SEVA SAHAKAR BANK NIGAM, GOGI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.202738 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDRAMREDDY,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. BASAVARAJ S/O VEERAPPA PARIVEN,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. MAHADEVAPPA S/O VEERAPPA PARIVEN,
AGE: 62YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SARASWATI W/O MALLANNA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. SUBHASH S/O MALLANNA,
AGE: 42YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. SURESH S/O MALLANNA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. HAMPAMMA W/O BASALINGAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. NINGAREDDY S/O BASALINGAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. BASAVARAJ S/O BASALINGAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. GOGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIRI-585309
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
AND:
1. VYAWASAYA SEVA SAHAKAR BANK NIGAM,
GOGI, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
CHANNAPPA GOUDA S/O RAMAPPA HOTHPETH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O GOGI, TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585309.
2. SRI VEERANNA S/O LATE BASALINGAPPA PARIWAN,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GOGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI- 585309
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT AS FOLLOWS. A) TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ORDER ON IA FILED U/O 23 RULE 1(3) R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC DATED 23.04.2025 IN R.A.NO.14/2016 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI VIDE
ANNEXURE-K. B) TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
DEEMED FIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
23.04.2025 passed in R.A.No.14/2016 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, at Yadgir.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ
petition are as follows:-
The respondents filed a suit for declaration and
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property in
O.S.No.194/2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil
Judge, at Shorapur sitting at Shahapur. The said suit was
dismissed by the judgment dated 07.08.2013. The
respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.194/2004 preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.14/2016 on the file of the District and Sessions
Judge, at Yadgir. The First Appellate Court after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the
appeal posted the case for judgment. At that stage the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
respondents filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1
(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
seeking permission to withdraw the suit with a liberty to
file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said
application was opposed by the petitioners by filing
objections. The Trial Court after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties allowed the application and
permitted the respondents to withdraw the suit with the
liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action vide
order dated 23.04.2025. The petitioners aggrieved by the
said order filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and
injunction in the year 2003. The Trial Court after full
fledged trial dismissed the suit filed by the respondents
and appeal came to be filed. He submits that the First
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
Appellate Court heard the learned counsel for the parties
and posted the case for pronouncement of judgment. At
that stage the respondents filed an application seeking
permission to withdraw the suit. He submits that Trial
Court without considering that plaintiffs can be permitted
to withdraw the suit only if there is any defect in the
pleading. Admittedly, there is no such defect in the
pleading. Hence, question of permitting the respondents to
withdraw the suit at the stage of first appeal that to when
the case is posted for judgment. The First Appellate Court
committed an error in passing impugned order. Hence, on
these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the
writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent
filed a suit for declaration, etc., against the petitioners in
O.S.No.194/2004. The petitioners appeared and filed the
written statement. The Trial Court after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties dismissed the suit. The
respondents aggrieved with the dismissal of suit in
O.S.No.194/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.14/2016.
The First Appellate Court heard the learned counsel for the
parties and posted the case for pronouncement of
judgment. At that stage the respondents filed an
application seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit
with the liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of
action.
8. Admittedly, from the perusal of the plaint there
is no defect in the pleading. The Trial Court after full-
fledged trial dismissed the suit filed by the respondents.
The First Appellate Court posted the matter for
pronouncement of judgment. At that stage the
respondents have filed an application to withdraw the suit.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
The parties have spent more than 22 years in the Court
proceeding. If the respondents are permitted to withdraw
the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit there will be no
end to the litigation. There should be a finality.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
R.Rathinavel Chettiar and another vs Sivaraman and
others reported in 1999 (4) SCC 89 . Placing reliance on
the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court held in Para 20 which reads as follows:-
"Once the decree is passed by the trial court,
certain rights are vested in the party in whose
favour the suit is decided. Thus, the plaintiff is
not entitled to withdraw the suit as a matter of
course at any time after the decree is passed by
the trial court. In these circumstances, the lower
appellate court has acted illegally by allowing the
plaintiffs to withdraw the suit after setting aside
the judgment and decree of the trial court
dismissing the suit."
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
10. The First Appellate Court committed an error in
allowing an application permitting the respondents to
withdraw the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit on the
same cause of action and the said order passed by the
Trial Court is contrary to the exposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred supra.
11. Further admittedly when the case is posted for
pronouncement of judgment the Court could not have
entertained an application for withdrawal of suit. The said
view is supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs. The
Country Wide Consumer Financial Services Ltd.,
reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka 2215 .
12. In view of the above discussion the impugned
order passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse and
arbitrary. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. Accordingly, the following:-
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11595
WP No. 202738 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030117512025
O R D E R
I. The writ petition is allowed .
II. The impugned order is set aside.
III. Consequently, application filed by the respondents
for withdrawing the suit with the liberty to file a fresh
suit on the same cause of action is rejected.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
KJJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
CT:PK